Sermons preached on several occasions to which a discourse is annexed concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ : wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered / by Edward Stillingfleet ... — Sermons. Selections

Sermons preached on several occasions to which a discourse is annexed concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ : wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered / by Edward Stillingfleet ... — Sermons. Selections

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

THE CONTENTS.

PART I. Six SERMONS upon

PART II. A Discourse concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of CHRIST.

TO THE Right Honourable ELIZABETH COUNTESSE DOWAGER OF JOCELIN Late EARLE of Northumberland.

SERMON I. At St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of COMMONS. Octo. 10. 1666.

SERMON II. Preached before the KING, MARCH 13. 1665/9.

SERMON III. Preached at WHITE-HALL.

SERMON IV. Preached at WHITE-HALL.

SERMON V. Preached at WHITE HALL.

SERMON VI. Preached on GOOD-FRYDAY before the Lord Mayor, &c.

SERMON VII. Preached before the KING, JANUARY 30. 1668/9.

SERMON VIII. Preached at GUILD-HALL Chappel. JUNE 9. 1671.

SERMON IX. Preached at WHITE HALL. WHITSUNDAY 1669.

SERMON X. Preached at WHITE-HALL. MARCH 2. 1669.

SERMON XI. Preached at WHITE HALL. MRRCH 27. 1672.

SERMON XII. Preached at WHITE HALL. FEBRUARY 18. 1672.

[2]

Title page

DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON Of the SUFFERINGS of CHRIST.

CHAP. 1.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

SERMONS Preached on several Occasions.

To which a DISCOURSE IS ANNEXED Concerning the TRUE REASON OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

WHEREIN CRELLIUS his Answer to GROTIUS IS CONSIDERED.

By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.

LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Henry Mortlock, at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall. 1673.

THE CONTENTS.

[Page]

[Page]

PART I. Six SERMONS upon

AMOS IV. XI. I Have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand pluckt out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord. pag. 1

PROV. XIV. IX. Fools make a mock at Sin. pag. 23

LUKE VII. XXXV. But Wisdom is justified of all her Children. pag. 42

ROMANS I. XVI. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the Power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. pag. 62

HEBREWS II. III. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? pag. 79

[Page] HEBREWS XII. III. For, consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary, and faint in your minds. pag. 97

JUDE V. II. And perished in the gainsaying of Corah. pag. 120

MATTHEW XXI. XLIII. Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruit; thereof. pag. 141

JOHN VII. XX XIX. But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive. For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Iesus was not yet glorified. pag. 162

ISAIAH LVII. XXI. There is no peace, saith my God to the Wicked. pag. 178

II CORINTH. V. II. Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord, we perswade men. pag. 198

MATTHEW XVI. XXVI. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall he give in exchange for his soul? pag. 217

PART II. A Discourse concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of CHRIST.

[Page]

CHAP. I. OF the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture. Of the uncertainty it leaves us in as to the main articles of Faith, manifested by an Exposition of Gen. 1. suitable to that way. The state of the Controversie in general concerning the sufferings of Christ for us. He did not suffer the same we should have done. The grand mistake in making punishments of the nature of Debts; the difference between them at large discovered, from the different reason and ends of them. The right of punishments in God, proved against Crellius, not to arise from meer dominion. The end of punishment not bare Compensation, as it is in debts; what punishment due to an injured person by the right of Nature; proper punishment a result of Laws. Crellius his great mistake about the end of Punishments. Not designed for satisfaction of Anger as it is a desire of Revenge. Seneca and Lactantius vindicated against Crellius. The Magistrates interest in Punishment distinct from that of private persons. Of the Nature of Anger in God, and the satisfaction to be made to it. Crellius his great arguments against satisfaction depend on a false Notion of Gods anger. Of the ends of divine Punishments, and the different nature of them in this and and the future state. pag. 239

[Page] CHAP. II. The particular state of the Controversie, concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries. The debate reduced to two heads: The first concerning Christs sufferings, being a punishment for sin, entred upon. In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men, to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment, from Scripture. The importance of the phrase of bearing sins. Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself. [...] never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it. Crellius his sense examined. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. The argument from Matth. 8. 17. answered. Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. cleared. Whether Christs death be a proper [...], and whether that doth imply, that it was a punishment of sin? How far the punishment of Children for their Fathers faults, are exemplary among men. The distinction of calamities and punishments, holds not here. That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, unless they were a punishment of sin, proved against Crellius. Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us, defended. The liberty our Adversaries take in Changing the sense of words. The particles [...], being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin. According to their way of interpreting Scripture, it had been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein. pag. 265

CHAP. III. The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us, the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason. The debate managed upon point of reason: The grand difficulty enquired into, and manifested by our Adversaries concessions, not to lye in the greatness of Christs sufferings, or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them, or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults: or in all cases unjust: the cases wherein Crellius allows it, instanced. [Page] From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause. The arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins. Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined. Of the relation between desert and punishment. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions. An answer to Crellius his Objections. What it is to suffer undeservedly, Crellius his mistake in the state of the question. The instances of Scripture considered. In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins. Ezec. 18. 20. explained at large. Whether the guilty being freed from the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no? Crellius his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered. Why among men the offenders are not freed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished. The release of the party depends on the terms of the sureties suffering, therefore deliverance not ipso facto. No necessity of such a translation in criminal, as is in pecuniary matters. pag. 295

CHAP. IV. The Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin. What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law; twofold, Civil and Ritual. The Promises made to the Iews under the Law of Moses, respected them as a People, and therefore must be temporal. The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted. A substitution in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, proved from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of [...] joyned with [...]. Lev. 10. 17. explained. The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution. A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ being said to dye for us; the importance of that phrase considered. In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution. Of the true notion of Redemption: that explained, and proved against Socinus and Crellius. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive, where the captivity is not by force, but by sentence of Law. Christs death a proper [...]: and therefore the [...] attributed to it, cannot be taken for meer deliverance. pag. 314

[Page] CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ, because of the Oblation made therein to God. Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed. Against him it is proved, that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us. Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven, if Crellius his Doctrine be true, Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice, and an Oblation to God. The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour, belongs to Expiatory Sacrifices; Crellius his gross notion of it. His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices. Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law. A new distribution of sacrifices proposed. What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation. The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement; from whence it is proved, that Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven. The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice, proved by the Iewish Laws, and the customs of other Nations. Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven, or on Earth? Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law. Several things observed from thence to our purpose. All things necessary to a legal Oblation, concur in the death of Christ: His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it; if the blood of Christ were no sacrifice for sin. In Sin-offerings for the People, the whole was consumed; no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests, but in those for private Persons. Christs exercise of Power in Heaven, in no sense an Oblation to God. Crellius, his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute. Objections answered. pag. 329

CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ, which either respect the sin or the person. Of the true notion of expiation of sin, as attributed to Sacrifices. Of the importance of [...], as applied to them. Socinus his proper sense of it examined. Crellius his Objections answered. [Page] The Iews notion of [...]. The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon, nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience. Gods expiating sin, destroys not expiation by Sacrifice. The importance of [...] and [...], relating to Sacrifices. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices: and from thence, and the places of Scripture which mention it, proved not to be meerly declarative. If it had been so, it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death. The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it; because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture, and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God. The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, respecting the person, belong to the death of Christ, which are Atonement and Reconciliation. Of the signification of [...] and [...]. The Reconciliation by Christs death, doth not meerly respect us, but God; why the latter less used in the New Testament. A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture. Crellius his evasion answered. The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son, and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered, and the whole concluded. pag. 355

TO THE Right Honourable ELIZABETH COUNTESSE DOWAGER OF JOCELIN Late EARLE of Northumberland.

[Page]

[Page]

Madam,

AMONG the number of those who congratulate Your safe return into Your own Countrey, wherein Your Ladiship is so justly beloved [Page] and esteemed by all that honour Vertue and Goodness, Give me leave to express my Duty in an Address more agreeable to my own Profession, than some perhaps will think it is to Your Quality and Condition. Those I mean who measure their Greatness by their contempt of Religion, and all that belong to it: Who know nothing of Wit or Vertue beyond the Stage, or think the Leviathan contains in it the Whole Duty of Man. The utmost these Persons will allow us whose Honour and Imployment lyes in asserting the Truth of Religion, and perswading to the practice of it, is, that we are men of a Profession, and speak for the things we are to live by. As though Reason and Religion were such contemptible Wares, as scarce any would enquire after, if it were not some mens Trade to put them off: and were of less force in themselves, because [Page] it is our Duty and Interest to maintain them. Is it any disparagement to a Prince to have Subjects obliged to defend his Honour, and Servants to attend his Person? and must not what they say or do be at all minded, because their own Interest is joyned with his? Why then should Religion suffer in the esteem of any, because she hath servants of her own to defend her Cause? As if it had alwayes been a received Principle with mankind, that no man is to be trusted in his own Profession. According to this the Lawyers ought to preach, and the Divines plead Causes; because the one gets nothing by Divinity, nor the other by Law; the Merchant should visit Patients, and the Physicians attend the Committees of Trade; because it is dangerous trusting men in what they are most concerned to understand. When [Page] once I see these persons for bear to consult the Lawyers about setling their Estates, and Physicians for their health, meerly because they get by their Professions, I shall then think it is something else besides a Pique at Religion, which makes them so ready to contemn whatever is said by us in behalf of it, because, forsooth, it is our Trade to defend it. I wish it were theirs as much to practise it; and then we should not be troubled with removing these and such like prejudices against all the Discourses of Religion, which are spoken and published by us. But in these matters which we conceive to be of so high concernment to Mankind, we desire nothing may be considered besides the force of reason, and weight of argument; and surely none that own themselves to be men, will despise that, by [Page] whomsoever it is brought. It is not every ridiculous story, or vulgar prejudice, or common infirmities, or different opinions in smaller things, which ought to render Religion ridiculous, or make the Practice of it be thought mean and contemptible. But however they are resolved to think of Us, let not Religion suffer for our sakes. Indeed if they did as truly love Religion as they despise us, we might then have reason to suspect our selves; but when we suffer meerly upon her account, we have cause to rejoyce in our dishonour; and ought to suspect our selves if such persons did speak well of Us.

Madam, The main design of these following Discourses is to recommend the great matters of Religion, from their Truth and Certainty, their Power and [Page] Efficacy, the Benefit and Advantage, which comes by them: and to disswade from the Practice of Sin, from the folly and reproach, the present dissatisfaction and suture punishment which attends it. If they may be of Use to the World, and any wayes serviceable to Your Ladiship in Your retirements, I have the end I aimed at. And I have therefore presumed to dedicate them to Your Ladiship, not only because of the great Obligations which I have to Your Self and Family, which were first laid upon me, by that Excellent Person, the late Lord Treasurer, Your Father; but likewise because You have so well followed so worthy an Example in joyning Greatness and Goodness together. Were it my design to publish Your just and due Character, I should not need to find fault with the Age to give the greater advantage to [Page] Your Vertue: All the harm I wish the Age, is, that there were many more Persons of Your Condition, that did as little need, and as much despise the meanness of Flattery. I am

Madam,

Your Ladiships most obliged and humble Servant, ED. STILLINGFLEET.

SERMON I. Serm. I. A B At St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of COMMONS. Octo. 10. 1666.

[Page]

[Page]

AMOS IV. XI.

I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom C and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand pluckt out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord.

IT is but a very little time since you met D together in this place to lament the remainders of a raging pestilence, which the last year destroyed so many thousand inhabitants of the late great and famous City: and now God hath given us another sad occasion for our fa [...]ng and humiliation, by suffering a devouring fire to break forth and consume so many of her habitations. As though the infected air had been too kind and partial, and like Saul to the Amalekites, had E only destroyed the vile and refuse, and spared the greatest of the people; as though the grave had surfeited with the bodies of the dead, and were loth to go on in the execution of Gods displeasure; he hath imployed a more furious Element, which [Page] by its merciless and devouring flames might in a more lively A manner represent unto us the kindling of his wrath against us. And that by a Fire, which began with that violence, and spread with that horror, and raged with that sury, and continued for so long a time with that irresistible force; that it might justly fill the beholders with confusion, the hearers of it with amasement, and all of us with a deep and humble sense of those sins which have brought down the judgements of God in so severe a manner in the midst of us.

For whatever arguments or reasons we can imagine that should compose the minds of men to a sense of their own or B others calamities, or excite them to an apprehension of the wrath of God as the cause of them, or quicken them to an earnest supplication to him for mercy, they do all eminently concurr in the sad occasion of this daies solemnity. For if either compassion would move, or fear awaken, or interest engage us to any of these, it is hard to conceive there should be an instance of a more efficacious nature, than that is which we this day bewail; For who can behold the ruines of so great a City, and not have his bowels of compassion moved towards it? Who can have any sense of the anger of God discovered in it, and not C have his fear awakened by it? Who can (as we ought all) look upon it as a judgement of universal influence on the whole Nation, and not think himself concerned to implore the mercy of Heaven towards us? For certainly, howsoever we may vainly flatter and deceive our selves, these are no common indications of the frowns of Heaven; nor are they mee [...]ly intended as the expressions of Gods severity towards that City which hath suffered so much by them; but the stroaks which fall upon the head (though they light upon that only) are designed for the punishment of the whole body. D

Were there nothing else but a bare permission of Divine Providence as to these things, we could not reasonably think, but that God must needs be very angry with us, when he suffers two such dreadful calamities to tread almost upon each others heels; that no sooner had death taken away such multitudes of our Inhabitants, but a Fire follows it to consume our habitations. A Fire, so dreadful in its appearance, in its rage and fury, and in all the dismal consequences of it (which we cannot yet be sufficiently apprehensive of) that on that very account we may justly Lam. 2. 1. lie down in our shame, and our confusion cover us: because E God hath Covered the daughter of Sion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from Heaven to earth the beauty of Israel, and remembred not his footstool in the day of his anger. For such was the violence and fury of the flames, that they [Page] have not only defaced the beauty of the City, and humbled the A pride and grandeur of it; not only stained its glory, and consumed its Palaces; but have made the Houses of God themselves a heap of ruines, and a spectacle of desolation.

And what then can we propose to our selves as arguments of Gods severe displeasure against us, which we have not either already felt, or have just cause to fear are coming upon us without a speedy and sincere amendment? If a Sword abroad and Pestilence at home, if Fire in our Houses and Death in our Streets, if Foreign Wars and Domestick Factions, if a languishing State and a discontented People, if the ruines of the City and B poverty of the Country, may make us sensible how sad our condition at present is, how much worse it may be (if God in his mercy prevent it not) we shall all surely think we have reason enough this day to lay to heart the evil of our doings which have brought all these things upon us, and abhor our selves, repenting in dust and ashes. That would seem indeed to bear some analogy with the present ruines of the City, and the calamities we lie under at this time; but God will more easily dispense with the pompous shews, and solemn garbs of our humiliation; if our hearts bleed within for our former impleties, C and our repentance discovers its sincerity, by bringing us to that temper; that, though we have done iniquity, we will do so no more. That is the true and proper end, which Almighty God aims at, in all his Judgements: he takes no delight in hurling the World into confusions, and turning Cities into ruinous heaps, and making whole Countries a desolation: but when he sees it necessary to vindicate the honour of his Justice to the World, he doth it with that severity that may make us apprehend his displeasure, and yet with that mercy which may incourage us to repent and return unto the D Lord. Thus we find in the instances recorded in the Text, when some Cities were consumed by him; so that as far as concerned them, they were made like to Sodom and Gomorrah: yet he doth it with that kindness to the Inhabitants, that they are pluckt as firebrands out of the burning: and therefore he looks upon it as a frustrating the design both of his Iustice, and of his Mercy, when he is fain to conclude with that sad reflection on their incorrigibleness; Yet have ye not returned unto me saith the Lord. Thus ye see what the design and scope of the words is, which I have read unto you, wherein E we may consider,

1. The severity of the Judgement which God was pleased to execute upon them. I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Page] 2. The mixture of his mercy in the midst of his severity, A and ye were as a firebrand pluckt out of the burning.

3. The incorrigibleness of the people notwithstanding both. Yet have ye not, &c. In the first we have Gods Rod lifted up to strike, in the second we have Gods Hand stretched out to save, yet neither of these would make them sensible of their disobedience; though their Cities were overthrown for their sakes, though they themselves escaped not for their own sakes, but for his mercies sake only whom they had so lighly provoked; yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord. I am sure I may say of the two former parts of the Text, as our Saviour B doth in another case, This day hath this Scripture been fulfilled among you: we have seen a sad instance of Gods severity, a City almost wholly consumed as Sodom and Gomorah, and a great expression of his kindness, the Inhabitants saved, as firebrands pluckt out of the burning: O let it never be said that the last part of the words is fulfilled too, Yet have ye not returned unto me, &c. which, that it may not be, I shall first consider the severity of God in his judgement this day and then discover the mixture of his kindness with it, and the result of both will be the unreasonableness of obstinate C disobedience after them.

1. The severity of the judgement here expressed: which, though we take it not in reference to the persons of men, but t [...] the Cities wherein they dwelt: as it seems to be understood not only by the Original wherein the words relating to persons are left out: but by the following clause, expressing their preservation: yet we shall find the Judgement to be severe enough, in regard 1. Of the nature and kind of it. 2. The series and order of it. 3. The causes moving to it. 4. The Author of it. I have overthrown some of you, as D God overthrew, &c.

1. The nature and kind of it: We can imagine nothing more severe when we consider what it is set forth by, the most unparalleld Judgement we read of, viz. the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by a fire from Heaven. Although in all circumstances the instance might not come up to the parallel, yet in several respects there might be so sad a desolation, that any other example but that might fall beneath the greatness and severity of it. And we may better understand of how sad and dreadful a nature such a Judgement must be, if E we consider it with relation to the suddenness and unexpectedness of it, to the force and violence of it, and to all that sad train of circumstances which attend and follow it.

1. The suddenness and unexpectedness of it; as God overthrew[Page]Sodom and Gomorrah, i. e. when they least of all looked A for such a desolation. For thus it was in the days of Lot (as our Saviour tells us) Luk. 17. 28, 29. they did eat, they drank, thy bought, thy sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from Heaven, and destroyed them all. They were all immersed either in their pleasures or in their business, they little thought of destruction being so near them as it proved to be; Thus it was with the Iews in their first and latter destruction both of their City and Country, they were as high and as confident of the contrary as might be to the very last; nothing could perswade B them that their Temple or their City should be burnt with Fire, till they saw them staming before their eyes. Thus Iosephus [...]. de beil. Jud. l. 7. c. 14. observes of his Countrymen, that in the midst of all their miseries they had no kind of sense at all of their sins, but were as proud presumptuous and arrogant, as if all things went well with them; and were like to do so. They thought God could not possibly punish such a people as they were in such a manner; they could easily have believed it of any other people but themselves: but that God should punish his own people in Covenant with him, that Judgement should begin at the house of God, C that they who had loved to be called by his Name, should be made examples to all other Nations; this seemed so harsh and incredible that by no means could they entertain it. But God and Wise men too thought otherwise of them than they did of themselves: they could not but see an outward shew of Religion joyned with a deep and subtil hypocrisie; there being among them an heap of pride and luxury, of fraud and injustice, of sedition and faction gilded over with a fair shew of greater zeal for God and his Glory: which that impartial Historian (as one who knew them well) hath described at large: and although D they could not believe that such heavy Judgements should befall them, yet others did not only believe, but tremble at the apprehensions of them.

Who among all the Citizens of London could have been perswaded, but the day before the Fire brake out, nay when they saw the Flames for near a day together, that ever in four dayes time, not a fourth part of the City should be left standing? For when were they ever more secure and inapprehensive of their danger than at this time? they had not been long returned to their Houses, which the Plague had driven them E from, and now they hoped to make some amends for the loss of their Trade before; but they returned home with the same sins they carried away with them; like new Moons, they had a new face and appearance, but the same spots remained still: or it [Page] may be, increased by that scumm they had gathered in the A Countries where they had been. Like Beasts of prey that had been chained up so long till they were hunger-bitten, when they once got loose they ran with that violence and greediness to their wayes of gain, as though nothing could ever satisfie them. But that which betrayed them to so much security, was their late deliverance from so sweeping a Judgement as the Plague had been to the City and Suburbs of it: they could by no means think, when they had all so lately escaped the Grave, that the City it self should be so near being buried in its own ruines; that the Fire which had missed their blood, should seize upon B their houses; that there should be no other way to purge the infected air, but by the Flames of the whole City. Thus when the Mariners have newly escaped a wreck at Sea, the fears of which have a long time deprived them of their wonted rest, they think they may securely lye down and sleep, till it may be another storm overtake and sink them. We see then there is neither piety nor wisdom in so much security when a great danger is over, for we know not but that very security it self may provoke God to send a greater. And no kind of Judgements are so dreadful and amazing, as those which come most unexpectly C upon men; for these betray the succours which reason offers, they insatuate mens councils, weaken their courage, and deprive them of that presence of mind which is necessary at such a time for their own and the publick interest. And there needs no more to let us know how severe such a Judgement must be, when it comes upon men in so sudden and unexpected a manner; but that is not all, for the severity of it lyes further,

2. In the force and violence of it: and surely that was very great which consumed four Cities to nothing in so short a time, when God did pluere Gehennam de Coelo as one expresses D it, rained down Hell-fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. And this is that which some think is called the Jude 7. vengeance of eternal fire, which all those in Sodom and Gomorrah are said to suffer; i. e. a Fire which consumed, till there was nothing left to be consumed by it. Not but that those wicked persons did justly suffer the vengeance of an eternal fire in another life, but the Apostle seems to set out and paint forth to us that in the life to come, by the force and violence of that fire which destroyed those Cities; and it would be harsh to say, that all who were involved in that common calamity (who yet were innocent as E to the great abominations of those places, viz. the Infants there destroyed) must be immediately sentenced to eternal misery. But although God since that perpetual monument of his justice in the destruction of those Cities hath not by such an [Page] immediate fire from Heaven consumed and razed out the very A foundations of other Cities; yet at sometimes there are fires which break out and rage with a more than ordinary violence, and will not yield to those attempts for quenching them, which at other times may be attended with great success. Such might that great fire in Rome be in Nero's time, which whether begun casually, or by design (which was disputed then, as it hath been about others since) did presently spread it self with greater speed over the Cirque (as the Tacit. A [...]. 15. Historian tells us) than the Wind it self, and never left burning, till of fourteen Regions in Rome, but four were left entire. Such might that be in the Emperour B Titus his time, which lasted three dayes and nights, and was so irresistible in its fury, that the Historian tells us, it was certainly [...]. Xiphil. in Epit. Dion. in Tito. p. 227. more than an ordinary fire. Such might that be in the same City in the time of Commodus, which though all the art and industry imaginable were used for the quenching it, yet it burnt, till it had consumed besides the Temple of Peace, the fairest Houses and Palaces of the City, which on that account, the Historians attribute to more than natural causes. Such [...]. Herodian. in Commod. hist. l. 1. p. 22. v. Xiphil. ad fin. Commodi. might that be (which comes the nearest of any I have met with, to that Fire we this day lament the effects of) I mean that C at Constantinople, which happened Niceph. l. 15. c. 21. A. D. 465. in the beginning of September; it brake forth by the water side, and raged with that horrible fury for four dayes together, that it burnt down the greatest part of the City, and was so little capable of resistance, that as E [...]gr. l. 2. cap 13. Evagrius tells us, the strongest Houses were but [...], like so much dryed stubble before it; by which means the whole City was, as he calls it, [...], a most miserable and doleful spectacle; so that as Ba [...]. Tom. 5. A. 465. 1. Baronius expresses it, that city which before was accounted the wonder of the world, was ma [...] like unto Sodom and Gomorrah. Such likewise D might those two great Fires have been which have formerly burnt down great part of the then City of London; but neither of them come near the dreadfulness of this, considering how much bigger the habitations of the City were now, and how much greater the riches of it then could be imagined at those times. How great must we conceive the force of this Fire to have been, which having at first gotten a head where there was little means of resisting it, and much fuel to increase it; from thence it spead it self both with and against the wind; till it had gained so considerable a force, that it despised all the resistance E could be made by the strength of the buildings which stood in its way; and when it had once subdued the strongest and the tallest of them, it then roared like the waves of the Sea, and made its way through all the lesser obstacles, and [Page] might have gone on so far, till it had laid this City level with A the ruines of the other, had not he who sets the bounds to the Ocean, and saith, thus far shalt thou go and no farther, put a stop to it in those places which were as ready to have yielded up themselves to the rage of it, as any which had been consumed before.

3. The severity of it will yet more appear from all the dread ful circumstances which attend and follow it. Could you suppose your selves in the midst of those Cities which were consumed by Fire from Heaven, when it had seized upon their dwellings, O what cryes and lamentations, what yellings and B shriekings might ye then have heard among them! We may well think how dreadful those were, when we do but consider how sad the circumstances were of the Fare we mourn for this day. When it began like Sampson to break in pieces all the means of resisting it, and carried before it not only the Gates, but the Churches and most magnificent structures of the City, what horrour and confusion may we then imagine had seized upon the spirits of the Citizens; what distraction in their Councils, what paleness in their countenances, what pantings at their hearts, what an universal consternation might have been then C seen upon the minds of men? But O the sighs and tears, the frights and amasements, the miscarriages, nay the deaths of some of the weaker Sex at the terrour and apprehension of it! O the hurry and useless pains, the alarms and tumults, the mutual hinderances of each other that were among men at the beholding the rage and fury of it! There we might have seen Women weeping for their children, for fear of their being trod down in the press, or lost in the crowd of people, or exposed to the violence of the flames; Husbands more solicitous for the safety of their Wives and Children, than their own; the Souldiers D running to their Swords, when there was more need of Buckets; the Tradesemen loading their backs with that which had gotten possession of their hearts before. Then we might have heard some complaining thus of themselves: O that I had been as careful of laying up treasures in Heaven, as I have been upon Earth, I had not been under such fears of losing them as now I am! If I had served God as faithfully as I have done the world, he would never have left me as now that is like to do. What a fool have I been which have spent all my precious time for the gaining of that which may now be lost in an hours E time! If these flames be so dreadful, what are those which are reserved for them who love the world more than God! If none can come near the heat of this Fire, who can dwell with everlasting burnings! O what madness then will it be to sin [Page] any more wilfully against that God who is a consuming fire, A infinitely more dreadful than this can be! Farewel then all ye deceitful vanities: now I understand thee and my self better, O bewitching world, then to fix my happiness in thee any more. I will henceforth learn so much wisdom to lay up my treasures there where neither moths can corrupt them, not Thieves steal them, nor Fire consume them. O how happy would London be, if this were the effect of her flames on the minds of all her Inhabitants! She might then rise with a greater glory, and her inward beauty would outshine her outward splendour, let it be as great as we can wish or imagine. B

But in the mean time who can behold her present ruines, without paying some tears as due to the sadness of the spectacle, and more to the sins which caused them? If that City were able to speak out of its ruines, what sad complaints would it make of all those impieties which have made her so miserable. If it had not been (might she say) for the pride and luxury, the ease and delicacy of some of my Inhabitants, the covetousness, the fraud, the injustice of others, the debaucheries of the prophane, the open factions and secret hypocrisie of two many pretending to greater sanctity, my beauty had not been thus turned into C ashes, nor my glory into those ruines which make my enemies rejoyce, my friends to mourn, and all stand amazed at the beholding of them. Look now upon me, you who so lately admired the greatness of my Trade, the riches of my Merchants, the number of my people, the conveniency of my Churches, the multitude of my Streets, and see what desolations sin hath made in the earth. Look upon me, and then tell me whether it be nothing to dally with Heaven, to make a mock at sin, to slight the judgements of God, and abuse his mercies, and after all the attempts of Heaven to reclaim a people from their sins, D to remain still the same that ever they were? Was there no way to expiate your guilt but by my misery? Had the Leprosie of your sins so fretted in my Walls, that there was no cleansing them, but by the flames which consume them? Must I mourn in my dust and ashes for your iniquities, while you are so ready to return to the practice of them? Have I suffered so much by reason of them, and do you think to escape your selves? Can you then look upon my ruines with hearts as heard and unconcerned as the stones which lye in them? If you have any kindness for me, or for your selves, if you ever hope to see my E breaches repaired, my beauty restored, my glory advanced, look on Londons ruines and repent. Thus would she bid her Inhabitants not weep for her miseries, but for their own sins; for if never any sorrow was like to her sorrow, it is because never [Page] any sins were like to their sins. Not as though they were only A the sins of the City, which have brought this evil upon her, no, but as far as the judgement reaches, so great hath the compass of the sins been, which have provoked God to make her an example of his justice. And I fear the effects of Londons calamity will be felt all the Nation over. For, considering the present languishing condition of this Nation, it will be no easie matter to recover the blood and spirits which have been lost by this Fire. So that whether we consider the sadness of those circumstances which accompanied the rage of the fire, or those which respect the present miseries of the City, or the general B influence those will have upon the Nation, we cannot easily conceive what judgement could in so critical a time have befallen us, which had been more severe for the kind and Nature of it, than this hath been.

2. We consider it in the series and order of it. We see by the Text, this comes in the last place, as a reserve, when nothing else would do any good upon them: It is extrema medicina, as Hieron in loc. St. Hierom saith, the last attempt that God uses to reclaim a people by, and if these Causticks will not do, it is to be feared he looks upon the wounds as incurable. He had sent a famine before, C v. 6. a drought, v. 7, 8. blasting and mildew, v. 9. the Pestilence after the manner of Aegypt, v. 10. the miseries of War in the same verse. And when none of these would work that effect upon them, which they were designed for, then he comes to this last way of punishing before a final destruction, he overthrew some of their Cities as he had overthrown Sodom and Gomorrah. God forbid, we should be so near a final subversion, and utter desolation, as the ten Tribes were, when none of these things would bring them to repentance; but yet the method God hath used with us seems to bode very ill in case D we do not at last return to the Lord. For it is not only agreeable to what is here delivered as the course God used to reclaim the Israelites, but to what is reported by the most faithful Hisiorian of those times of the degrees and steps that God made before the ruines of the British Nation. For Gildas de Excid. Brit. Gildas tells us the decay of it began by Civil Wars among themselves, and high discontents remaining as the consequents of them, after this an universal decay and poverty among them; after that, nay during the continuance of it, Wars with the Picts and Scots their inveterate enemies; but no sooner had they a little breathing E space, but they return to their luxury and other sins again; then God sends among them a consuming Pestilence, which destroyed an incredible number of people. When all this would not do, those whom they trusted most to, betrayed them, and [Page] rebelled against them, by whose means, not only the Cities A were burnt with Fire, but the whole Island was turned almost into one continued flame. The issue of all which at last was, that their Country was turned to a desolation, the ancient Inhabitants driven out, or destroyed, and their former servants, but now their bitter enemies, possessing their habitations. May God avert the Omen from us at this day. We have smarted by Civil Wars, and the dreadful effects of them; we yet complain of great discontents and poverty as great as them, we have inveterate enemies combined abroad against us, we have very lately suffered under a Pestilence as great almost as any we read of, B and now the great City of our Nation burnt down by a dreadful Fire. And what do all these things mean? and what will the issue of them be? though that be lockt up in the Councils of Heaven, yet we have just cause to fear, if it be not our speedy amendment, it may be our ruine. And they who think that incredible, let them tell me whether two years since, they did not think it altogether as improbable, that in the compass of the two succeeding years, above a hundred thousand persons should be destroyed by the Plague in London and other places, and the City it self should be burnt to the Ground? And if our fears C do not, I am sure our sins may tell us, that these are but the fore-runners of greater calamities, in case there be not a timely reformation of our selves. And although God may give us some intermissions of punishments, yet at last he may, as the Roman Consul expressed it, pay us intercalatae poenae usuram, that which may make amends for all his abatements, and give us full measure according to that of our sins, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. Which leads to the third particular.

3. The Causes moving God to so much severity in his Iudgements, D which are the greatness of the sins committed against him. So this Prophet tells us, that the true account of all Gods punishments is to be fetched from the sins of the people, Amos 1. 3. For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof: so it is said of Gaza, v. 6. of Tyrus, v. 9. of Edom, v. 11. of Ammon, v. 13. Moab, ch. 2. 1. Iudah. v. 4. and at last Israel. v. 6. And it is observable of every one of these, that when God threatens to punish them for the greatness of their iniquities, and the multitude of their transgressions, (which is generally supposed to be meant E by the three transgressions and the four) he doth particularly threaten to send a fire among them to consume the Houses and the Palaces of their Cities. So to Damascus, chap. 1. 4. to Gaza, v. 7. to Tyrus, v. 10. to Edom, v. 12. to Ammon, v. 14. [Page] to Moab, ch. 2. v. 2. to Iudah, v. 5. I will send a fire upon Judah, A and it shall devour the Palaces of Jerusalem: and Israel in the words of the text. This is a judgement then, which when it comes in its fury, gives us notice to how great a height our sins are risen; especially when it hath so many dreadful forerunners, as it had in Israel, and hath had among our selves. When the red horse hath marched furiously before it all bloody with the effects of a Civil War, and the pale horse hath followed after the other with Death upon his back, and the Grave at his heels, and after both these, those come, out of whose mouth issues fire, and smoak, and brimstone, it is then time for the B inhabitants of the earth, to repent of the work of their hands. But it is our great unhappiness, that we are apt to impute these great calamities to any thing rather than to our sins; and thereby we hinder our selves from the true remedy, because we will not understand the cause of our distemper. Though God hath not sent Prophets among us, to tell us for such and such sins, I will send such and such judgements upon you, yet where we observe the parallel between the sins and the punishments agreeable with what we find recorded in Scripture, we have reason to say, that those sins were not only the antecedents, but the causes C of those punishments which followed after them. And that because the reason of punishment was not built upon any particular relation between God and the people of Israel, but upon reasons common to all mankind; yet with this difference, that the greater the mercies were which any people enjoyed, the sooner was the measure of their iniquities filled up, and the severer were the judgements when they came upon them. This our Prophet gives an account of, Chap. 3. 2. You only have I known of all the Nations of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your iniquities. So did God punish Tyre and Damascus, as well D as Israel and Iudah; but his meaning is, he would punish them sooner, he would punish them more severely. I wish we could be brought once to consider what influence piety and vertue hath upon the good of a Nation, if we did, we should not only live better our selves, but our Kingdom and Nation might flourish more than otherwise we are like to see it do. Which is a truth hath been so universally received among the wise Men of all ages, that one of the Roman Historians, though of no very severe life himself, yet imputes the decay of the Roman State, not to Chance or Fortune, or some unhidden causes (which E the Atheism of our Age would presently do) but to the general looseness of mens lives, and corruption of their manners. And it was the grave Observation of one of the bravest Scipio apud Aug d [...] Civ. D. l. 1. c. 33. Captains ever the Roman State had, that it was impossible for any [Page]State to be happy, stantibus moenibus, ruentibus moribus, A though their walls were firm, if their manners were decayed. But it is our misery, that our walls and our manners are fallen together, or rather the latter undermined the former. They are our sins which have drawn so much of our blood, and infected our air, and added the greatest fuel to our flames.

But it is not enough in general to declaim against our sins, but we must search out particularly those predominant vices, which by their boldness and frequency have provoked God thus to punish us; and as we have hitherto observed a parallel between the Iudgements of Israel in this Chapter, B and our own: So I am afraid we shall find too sad a parallel between their sins and ours too. Three sorts of sins are here spoken of in a peculiar manner, as the causes of their severe punishments, Their luxury and intemperance, their covetousness and oppression, and their contempt of God and his Laws, and I doubt we need not make a very exact scrutiny to find out these in a high degree among our selves: and I wish it were as easie to reform them, as to find them out.

1. Luxury and intemperance; that we meet with in the first verse, both in the compellation, Ye Kine of Bashan, and C in their behaviour, which say to their Masters, bring and let us drink. Ye Kine of Bashan, Loquitur ad Principes Israel & Optimates quosque decem Tribuum, saith St. Hierom, he speaks to the Princes of Israel, and the chief of all the ten Tribes; Those which are fed in the richest pasturés, such as those of Bashan were. Who are more fully described by the Prophet in this sixth chapter. They are the men who are at ease in Sion, v. 1. they put far away from them the evil day, v. 3. they lye upon beds of Ivory, and stretch themselves upon their Couches, and eat the Lambs out of the flock, and the D Calves out of the midst of the stall, v. 4. they chaunt to the sound of the Viol, and invent to themselves instruments of Musick like David. v. 5. they drink Wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief oyntments, but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. The meaning of all which is, they minded nothing but ease, softness, and pleasure, but could not endure to hear of the calamities which were so near them. Nothing but mirth, and jollity, and riot, and feasting, and the evil consequences of these were to be seen or heard among them. Their delicate souls were presently E rufled and disturbed at the discourse of any thing but matters of Courtship, address and entertainment. Any thing that was grave and serious, [...]hough never so necessary, and of the greatest importance, [...]s put off, as Felix put off [Page] St. Paul to a more convenient time: especially if it threatned A miseries to them, and appeared with a countenance sadder than their own. These were the Kine of Bashan, who were full of ease and wantonness, and never thought of the day of slaughter, which the other were the certain fore-runner of. Symmachus renders it, [...], which others apply to the rich Citizens of Samaria, I am afraid we may take it in either sense without a Soloecism. Bring and let us drink, which as St. Hierom goes on, Ebrietatem significat in vino & luxuria quae statum mentis evertunt, it implies the height of their luxury and intemperance. It is observed by some, that B our Prophet retains still the language of his education in the bluntness of his expressions, the great men that lived wholly at their ease, in wantonness and luxury, he styles like the heardsman of Tekoa, the Kine of Bashan. That he thought was title good enough for such who seemed to have souls for no other end, than the other had. And hath not that delicata insania, as St. Austin calls it, that soft and effeminate kind of madness taken possession of too many among us, whose birth and education designed them for more manly imployments? Yea, what an age of Luxury do we live in, when instead C of those noble characters of men from their vertue, and wisdom, and courage, it is looked on among some as a mighty character of a person, that he eats and drinks well: a character that becomes none so much as the Kine of Bashan in the literal sense, for surely they did so, or else they had never been in so great esteem among the heardsmen of Tekoa. A character which those Philosophers would have been ashamed of, who looked upon no other end of humane life but pleasure; but in order to that, they thought nothing more necessary than temperance and sobriety; but whatever esteem they had then, D they have lost all their reputation among our modern Epicures, who know of no such things as pleasures of the mind, and would not much value whether they had any faculties of the mind or no, unless it were for the contrivance of new Oaths and debaucheries. But if this were only among some few persons, we hope the whole Nation would not suffer for their madness: for scarce any Age hath been so happy, but it hath had some Monsters in Morality as well as Nature. But I am afraid these vices are grown too Epidemical; not only in the City, but the Countries too; what mean else those frequent E complaints (and I hope more general than the causes of them) that the houses of great men in too many places are so near being publick schools of debauchery, rather than of piety and vertue, where men shall not want instructers to teach [Page] them to forget both God and themselves; wherein sobriety is A so far from being accounted a matter of honour, that the rules of the Persian civility are quite forgotten, and men are forced to unman themselves. I know nothing would tend more to the honour of our Nation, or the advantage of it, than if once these publick excesses were severely restrained, I do not mean so much by making new Laws, (for those generally do but exercise peoples Wits by finding out new evasions) but by executing old ones.

2. Covetousness and oppression. You see what these great men in Samaria did when they had any respite from their excesses, B and intemperance, then wo be to the poor who come in their way; Which oppress the poor, and crush the needy: v. 1. either by the hands of violence, or by those arts and devices which either their honesty or poverty have kept them from the knowledge of. And if there be not so much of open violence in our daies, the thanks are due to the care of our Magistrates, and the severity of our Laws, but it is hard to say whether ever any Age produced more studious and skilful to pervert the design of Laws, without breaking the letter of them, than this of ours hath done. Fraud and injustice is now managed with C a great deal of artifice and cunning; and he thinks himself no body in the understanding of the world, that cannot overreach his Brother, and not be discovered: or however in the multiplicity and obscurity of our Laws cannot find out something in pretence at least to justifie his actions by. But if appeal be made to the Courts of Iudicature, what arts are then used either for concealing or hiring witnesses, so that if their Purses be not equal, the adverse party may overswear him by so much as his Purse is weightier than the others. I heartily wish it may never be said of us, what the Orator once said of D the Greeks, Ci [...]cr. pro Flac [...]o. Quibus jusjurandum jocus, testimonium ludus, they made it a matter of jest and drollery to forswear themselves, and give false testimonies. But supposing men keep within the bounds of justice and common honesty, yet how unsatiable are the desires of men! they are for adding house to house, and land to land, never contented with what either their Ancestors have left them, or the bountiful hand of Heaven hath bestowed upon them. Till at last it may be in the Prophets expression for their covetousness, Heb. 2. 21. the stone cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber answer it; E i. e. provoke God to give a severe check to the exorbitant and boundless desires of men, as he hath done by this days calamity. Thus while the City thought with Isa. 47. 7, 8, 11. Babylon to sit as a Lady for ever, while she dwelt carelsly, and said I am, [Page]and there is none else beside me; evil is come upon her, and A she knows not from whence it comes, and mischief is fallen upon her, and she hath not been able to put it off, and desolation is come upon her suddenly, which she did not foresee.

3. Contempt of God and his Laws. That we read of v. 4. where the Prophet speaks by an Irony to them, Come to Bethel and transgress, &c. he knew well enough they were resolved to do it, let God or the Prophet say what they pleased. For these Kine of Bashan were all for the Calves of Dan and Bethel, and some think that is the reason of the title that is given them. These great men of Samaria thought it beneath B them to own Religion any further than it was subservient to their civil interests. They were all of Ieroboams Religion, who looked on it as a meer politick thing, and fit to advance his own designs by. I am afraid there are too many at this day who are secretly of his mind, and think it a piece of wisdom to be so: Blessed God, that men should be so wise to deceive themselves, and go down with so much discretion to Hell! These are the Grave and retired Atheists, who, though they secretly love not Religion, yet their caution hinders them from talking much against it. But there is a sort C of men much more common than the other; the faculties of whose minds are so thin and aiery, that they will not bear the consideration of any thing, much less of Religion; these throw out their bitter scoffs, and prophane jests against it. A thing never permitted that I know of in any civilized Nation in the world; whatsoever their Religion was, the reputation of Religion was always preserved sacred: God himself (saith Iosephus) would not suffer the Iews to speak evil of other Gods, though they were to destroy all those who tempted them to the worship of them. And shall we suffer the D most excellent and reasonable Religion in the world, viz. the Christian, to be profaned by the unhallowed mouths of any who will venture to be damned, to be accounted witty? If their enquiries were deeper, their reason stronger, or their arguments more perswasive, than of those who have made it their utmost care and business to search into these things, they ought to be allowed a fair hearing; but for men who pretend to none of these things, yet still to make Religion the object of their scoffs and raillery, doth not become the gravity of a Nation professing wisdom to permit it, muche E less the sobriety of a people professing Christianity. In the mean time such persons may know, that wise men may be argued out of a Religion they own, but none but Fools and mad men will be droll'd out of it. Let them first try whether [Page] they can laugh men out of their Estates, before they attempt A to do it out of their hopes of an Eternal happiness. And I am sure it will be no comfort to them in another world, that they were accounted Wits for deriding those miseries which they then feel and smart under the severity of: it will be no mitigation of their flames that they go laughing into them; nor will they endure them the better because they would not believe them. But while this is so prevailing a humour among the vain men of this Age and Nation, what can we expect but that God should by remarkable and severe judgements, seek to make men more serious in Religion; B or else make their hearts to ake, and their joints to tremble, as he did Belshazzars, when he could find nothing else to carouse in but the Vessels of the Temple. And when men said in the Prophet Zephany, chap. 1. 12. that God neither did good nor evil, presently it follows, Zeph. 1. 13, 14, 15. therefore their goods shall become a booty, and their houses a desolation: the day of the Lord is near, a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wastness and desolation; as it is with us at this time. Thus we see how sad the parallel hath been not only in the judgements of Israel, C but in the sins likewise which have made those judgements so severe.

4. The severity of the Judgement appears not only from the Causes, but from the Author of it. I have overthrown some of you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. God challenges the execution of his Justice to himself, not only in the great day, but in his judgement here in the world. Amos 3. 6. Shall there be evil in a City and the Lord hath not done it? When God is pleased to punish men for their sins, the excution of his justice is agreeable to his nature now, as it D will be at the end of the world. We all know that he may do it if he please, and he hath told us, that he doth and will do it; and we know withal, that without such remarkable severities, the world will hardly be kept in any awe of him. We do not find that Love doth so much in the World as Fear doth, there being so very few persons of tractable and ingenuous spirits. It is true of too many, what Lact. l. 2 c. 11. Lactantius observes of the Romans, Nunquam Dei meminerunt, nisi dum in malis sunt, they seldom think of God, but when they are afraid of him. And there is E not only this reason as to particular persons why God should punish them, but there is a greater as to Communities, and Bodies of men; for although God suffers wicked men to escape punishment here, as he often doth; yet he is sure not [Page] to do it in the life to come; but Communities of men can A never be punished but in this World; and therefore the Justice of God doth often discover it self in these common calamities, to keep the World in subjection to him, and to let men see that neither the multitude of their Associates, nor the depth of their designs, nor the subtilty of their Councils can secure them from the omnipotent arm of Divine Justice, when he hath determined to visit their transgressions with rods, and their iniquities with stripes. But when he doth all this, yet his loving kindness doth he not utterly take from them: for in the midst of all his Judgements B he is pleased to remember mercy; of which we have a remarkable instance in the Text, for when God was overthrowing Cities, yet he pluckt the Inhabitants as firebrands out of the burning: and so I come from the severity of God.

2. To the mixture of his mercy in it. And ye were as a fire-brand pluckt out of the burning. That notes two things, the nearness they were in to the danger, and the unexpectedness of their deliverance out of it.

1. The nearness they were in to the danger, quasi torris, C cujus jam magna pars absumpta est, as some Paraphrase it; like a brand, the greatest part of which is already consumed by Fire; which shews the difficulty of their escaping. So Ioshua is said to be a brand pluckt out of the fire, Zech. 3. 2. And to this St. Hierom upon this place, applies that difficult passage, 1 Cor. 3. 15. they shall be saved, but so as by Fire, noting the greatness of the danger they were in, and how hardly they they should escape. And are not all the Inhabitants of this City, and all of us in the suburbs of the other, whose houses escaped so near the flames, D as Firebrands pluckt out of the burning? When the fire came on in its rage and sury, as though it would in a short time have devoured all before it, that not only this whole City, but so great a part of the Suburbs of the other should escape untouched, is (all circumstances considered) a wonderful expression of the kindness of God to us in the midst of so much severity. If he had suffered the Fire to go on to have consumed the remainder of our Churches and Houses, and laid this City even with the other in one continued heap of ruines, we must have said, Iust art thou, O Lord, and righteous E in all thy judgements. We ought rather to have admired his patience in sparing us so long; than complain of this rigour of his Justice in punishing us at last; but instead of that he hath given us occasion this day with the three [Page]Children in the fiery Furnace to praise him in the midst of A the flames. For even the Inhabitants of London themselves who have suffered most in this calamity, have cause to acknowledge the mercy of God towards them, that they are escaped themselves; though it be (as the Iews report of Ioshua the High-Priest, when thrown into the fire by the Chaldeans) with their cloaths burnt about them. Though their habitations be consumed, and their losses otherwise may be too great, yet that in the midst of so much danger by the flames, and the press of people, so very few should suffer the loss of their lives, ought to be owned by them and us as a B miraculous Providence of God towards them. And therefore not unto us, not unto us, but to his holy Name be the praise of so great a preservation in the midst of so heavy a Judgement.

2. The unexpectedness of such a deliverance; they are not saved by their own skill and counsel, nor by their strength and industry, but by him who by his mighty hand did pluck them as fire-brands out of the burning. Though we own the justice of God in the calamities of this day, let us not forget his mercy in what he hath unexpectedly rescued from the C fury of the flames; that the Royal Palaces of our Gratious Soveraign, the residence of the Nobility, the Houses of Parliament, the Courts of Iudicature, the place where we are now assembled and several others of the same nature, with other places and habitations to receive those who were burnt out of their own, stand at this day untouched with the fire (and long may they continue so) ought chiefly to be ascribed to the power and goodness of that God, who not only commands the raging of the Sea, and the madness of the People, but whom the winds and the flames obey. Although D enough in a due subordination to Divine Providence can never be attributed to the mighty care and industry of our most Gracious Soveraign, and his Royal Holiness, who by their presence and incouragement inspired a new life and vigour into the sinking spirits of the Citizens, whereby God was pleased so far to succeed their endeavours, that a stop was put to the fury of the fire in such places where it was as likely to have prevailed, as in any parts of the City consumed by it.

O let us not then frustrate the design of so much severity E mixed with so great mercy: let it never be said, that neither Judgements nor Kindness will work upon us: that neither our deliverance from the Pestilence which walks in darkness, nor from the flames which shine as the noon-day, will awaken [Page] us from that Lethargy and security we are in by our sins: but A let God take what course he pleases with us, we are the same incorrigible people still that ever we were. For we have cause enough for our mourning and lamentation this day, (if God had not sent new calamities upon us) that we were no better for those we had undergone before. We have surfeited with mercies, and grown sick of the kindness of Heaven to us, and when God hath made us smart for our fulness and wantonness, then we grew sullen and murmured and disputed against providence, and were willing to do any thing but repent of our sins, and reform our lives. B It is not many years since God blessed us with great and undeserved blessings, which we then thought our selves very thankful for; but if we had been really so, we should never have provoked him who bestowed those savours upon us in so great a degree as we have done since. Was this our requital to him for restoring our Soveraign, to rebel the more against Heaven? Was this our thankfulness, for removing the disorders of Church and State, to bring them into our lives? Had we no other way of trying the continuance of Gods goodness to us, but by exercising his patience C by our greater provocations? As though we had resolved to let the world see, there could be a more unthankful and disobedient people than the Iews had been. Thus we sinned with as much security and confidence, as though we had blinded the eyes, or bribed the justice, or commanded the power of Heaven. When God of a sudden like one highly provoked drew forth the sword of his destroying Angel, and by it cut off so many thousands in the midst of us: Then we fell upon our knees, and begg'd the mercy of Heaven, that our Lives might be spared, that we might have D time to amend them: but no sooner did our fears abate, but our devotion did so too, we had soon forgotten the promises we made in the day of our distress, and I am afraid it is at this day too true of us which is said in the Revelations of those who had escaped the several plagues which so many had been destroyed by. Rev. 9. 20. And the rest of the men which were not killed by these Plagues, yet repented not of the work of their bands. For if we had not greedily suckt in again the poyson we had only laid down while we were begging for our lives, if we had not returned with as great fury and violence E as ever to our former lusts, the removing of one judgement had not been as it were only to make way for the coming on of another. For the grave seemed to close up her mouth, and death by degrees to withdraw himself, that [Page] the Fire might come upon the Stage, to act its part too A in the Tragoedy our sins have made among us: and I pray God this may be the last Act of it. Let us not then provoke God to find out new methods of vengeance, and make experiments upon us of what other unheard of severities may do for our cure. But let us rather meet God now by our repentance, and returning to him, by our serious humiliation for our former sins, and our stedfast resolutions to return no more to the practice of them. That, that much more dangerous infection of our souls may be cured as well as that of our bodies, that the impure flames which burn B within may be extinguished, that all our luxuries may be retrenched, our debaucheries punished, our vanities taken away, our careless indifferency in Religion turned into a greater seriousness both in the profession and the practice of it. So will God make us a happy and prosperous, when he finds us a more righteous and holy Nation. So will God succeed all your endeavours for the honour and interest of that people whom you represent. So may he add that other Title to the rest of those you have deserved for your Countries good, to make you Repairers of the breaches of the City as C well as of the Nation, and Restorers of paths to dwell in: So may that City which now sits solitary like a Widow, have her tears wiped off, and her beauty and comeliness restored unto her. Yea, so may her present ruines, in which she now lies buried, be only the fore-runners of a more joyful resurrection. In which, though the body may remain the same, the qualities may be so altered, that its present desolation may be only the putting off its former inconveniences, weakness, and deformities, that it may rise with greater glory, strength and proportion: and to all her other qualities, may that of D incorruption be added too, at least till the general Conflagration. And I know your great Wisdom and Iustice will take care, that those who have suffered by the ruines, may not likewise suffer by the rising of it, that the glory of the City may not be laid upon the tears of the Orphans and Widows, but that its foundations may be setled upon Justice and Piety. That there be no complaining in the Streets for want of Righteousness, nor in the City for want of Churches, nor in the Churches for want of a settled maintenance. That those who attend upon the service of God in them may never E be tempted to betray their Consciences to gain a livelihood, nor to comply with the factions humours of men, that they may be able to live among them. And thus when the City through the blessing of Heaven shall be built again, may it [Page] be a Habitation of Holiness towards God, of Loyalty towards A our Gratious King and his Successors, of Iustice and Righteousness towards Men, of Sobriety, and Peace, and Unity among all the Inhabitants, till not Cities and Countries only, but the world and time it self shall be no more. Which God of his infinite mercy grant through the merits and mediation of his Son, to whom with the Father and Eternal Spirit, be all Honour and Glory for evermore. B C D E

SERMON II. Serm. II. A B Preached before the KING, MARCH 13. 1665/9.

[Page]

PROV. XIV. IX. C

Fools make a mock at Sin.

WHEN God by his infinite Wisdom had contrived, D and by a power and goodness, as infinite as his Wisdom, had perfected the creation of the visible world, there seemed to be nothing wanting to the glory of it, but a creature endued with reason and understanding, which might comprehend the design of his wisdom, enjoy the benefits of his goodness, and employ it self in the celebration of his power. The Beings purely intellectual were too highly raised by their own order and creation, to be the Lords of this inferiour world: and E those whose natures could reach no higher than the objects of sense, were not capable of discovering the glorious perfections of the great Creator: and therefore could not be the fit Instruments of his praise and service. But a conjunction [Page] of both these together was thought necessary to make up A such a sort of being, which might at once command this lower world, and be the servants of him who made it. Not as though this great fabrick of the world were meerly raised for man to please his fancy in the contemplation of it, or to exercise his dominion over the creatures designed for his use and service: but that by frequent reflections on the author of his being, and the effects of his power and goodness he might be brought to the greatest love and admiration of him. So that the most natural part of Religion lyes in the grateful acknowledgements we owe to that excellent and supream Being, who B hath shewed so particular a kindness to man in the creation and Government of the world. Which was so great and unexpressible, that some have thought, it was not so much pride and affectation of a greater height, as envy at the felicity and power of mankind, which was the occasion of the fall of the Apostate spirits. But whether or no the state of man were occasion enough for the envy of the Spirits above; we are sure the kindness of Heaven was so great in it, as could not but lay an indispensable obligation on all mankind to perpetual gratitude and obedience. For it is as easie to suppose, that C affronts and injuries are the most suitable returns for the most obliging favours, that the first duty of a Child should be to destroy his Parents; that to be thankful for kindnesses received, were to commit the unpardonable sin; as that man should receive his being and all the blessings which attend it from God, and not be bound to the most universal obedience to him.

And as the reflection on the author of his being, leads him to the acknowledgement of his duty towards God, so the consideration of the design of it, will more easily acquaint him D with the nature of that duty which is expected from him. Had man been designed only to act a short part here in the world, all that had been required of him, had been only to express his thankfulness to God for his being, and the comforts of it: the using all means for the due preservation of himself; the doing nothing beneath the dignity of humane nature, nothing injurious to those who were of the same nature with himself; but since he is designed for greater and nobler ends, and his present state, is but a state of tryal, in order to future happiness and misery; the reason of good and evil is not to be taken meerly E from his present, but from the respect, which things have to that eternal state he is designed for. From whence it follows, that the differences of good and evil are rooted in the nature of our beings, and are the necessary consequents of our [Page] relation to God, and each other, and our expectations of a A future life. And therefore according to these measures, the estimation of men in the world hath been while they did preserve any veneration for God or themselves. Wisdom and folly was not measured so much by the subtilty and curiosity of mens speculations, by the fineness of their thoughts, or the depth of their designs, as by their endeavours to uphold the dignity of mankind; by their piety and devotion towards God; by their sobriety and due Government of their actions; by the equality and justice, the charity and kindness of their dealings to one another. Wisdom was but another name for B goodness, and folly for sin; then it was a mans glory to be religious; and to be prophane and vitious, was to be base and mean: then there were no Gods worshipped because they were bad, nor any men disgraced because they were good. Then there were no Temples erected to the meanest passions of humane nature, nor men became Idolaters to their own infirmities. Then to be betrayed into sin, was accounted weakness; to contrive it, dishonour and baseness; to justifie and defend it, infamy and reproach; to make a mock at it, a mark of the highest folly and incorrigibleness. So the Wise man in the words of the Text C assures us, that they are Fools, and those of the highest rank and degree of folly, who make a mock at sin.

It is well for us in the Age we live in, that we have the judgement of former ages to appeal to, and of those persons in them whose reputation for wisdom is yet unquestionable. For otherwise we might be born down by that spightful enemy to all vertue and goodness, the impudence of such, who it is hard to say whether they shew it more in committing sin, or in defending it. Men whose manners are so bad, that scarce any thing can be imagined worse, unless it be the wit they D use to excuse them with. Such who take the measure of mans perfections downwards, and the nearer they approach to beasts, the more they think themselves to act like men. No wonder then, if among such as these the differences of good and evil be laughed at, and no sin be thought so unpardonable, as the thinking that there is any at all. Nay, the utmost they will allow in the description of Sin, is, that it is a thing that some live by declaiming against, and others cannot live without the practice of.

But is the Chair of Scorners at last proved the only chair E of Infallibility? Must those be the standard of mankind, who seem to have little left of humane nature, but laughter and the shape of men? Do they think that we are all become such fools to take scoffs for arguments, and raillery for demonstrations? [Page] He knows nothing at all of goodness, that knows not A that it is much more easie to laugh at it, than to practise it; and it were worth the while to make a mock at sin, if the doing so would make nothing of it. But the nature of things does not vary with the humours of men; sin becomes not at all the less dangerous because men have so little Wit to think it so; nor Religion the less excellent and advantagious to the world, because the greatest enemies of that are so much to themselves too, that they have learnt to despise it. But although that scorns to be defended by such weapons whereby her enemies assault her, (nothing more unbecoming the Majesty B of Religion, than to make it self cheap, by making others laugh) yet if they can but obtain so much of themselves to attend with patience to what is serious, there may be yet a possibility of perswading them, that no fools are so great as those who laugh themselves into misery, and none so certainly do so, as those who make a mock at sin.

But if our authority be too mean and contemptible to be relyed on, in a matter wherein they think us so much concerned (and so I hope we are to prevent the ruine of mens souls) we dare with confidence appeal to the general sense of mankind C in the matter of our present debate. Let them name but any one person in all the monuments of former ages, to whom but the bare suspicion of Vice was not a diminution to an esteem that might otherwise have been great in the world. And if the bare suspicion would do so much among even the more rude and barbarous Nations, what would open and professed wickedness do among the more knowing and civil? Humane nature retains an abhorrency of sin, so far that it is impossible for men to have the same esteem of those who are given over to all manner of wickedness, though otherwise of D great sharpness of wit, and of such whose natural abilities may not exceed the other, but yet do govern their actions according to the strict rules of Religion and Vertue. And the general sense of mankind cannot be by any thing better known, than by an universal consent of men, as to the ways whereby they express their value and esteem of others. What they all agree on as the best character of a person worthy to be loved and honoured, we may well think is the most agreeable to humane nature; and what is universally thought a disparagement to the highest accomplishments, ought to be E looked on as the disgrace and imperfection of it. Did ever any yet, though never so wicked and prosane themselves, seriously commend another person for his rudeness and debaucheries? Was any mans lust or intemperance ever reckoned among [Page] the Titles of his honour? Who ever yet raised Trophies to his A vices, or thought to perpetuate his memory by the glory of them? Where was it ever known, that sobriety and temperance, justice and charity were thought the marks of reproach and infamy? Who ever suffered in their reputation by being thought to be really good? Nay, it is so far from it, that the most wicked persons do inwardly esteem them whether they will or no. By which we see, that even in this lapsed and degenerate condition of mankind, it is only goodness which gains true honour and esteem, and nothing doth so effectually blast a growing reputation, as wickedness and B vice.

But if it be thus with the generality of men, who were never yet thought to have too much partiality towards goodness, we may much more easily find it among those, who have had a better ground for the reputation of their wisdom, than the meer vogue of the people. He who was pronounced by the Heathen Oracle, to be the wisest among the Greeks, was the person who brought down Philosophy from the obscure and uncertain speculations of Nature, and in all his discourses recommended Vertue as the truest wisdom. And he among the C Iews, whose 1 King. 4. 29, 30, 31. soul was as large as the sand on the Sea shore, whose wisdom out-went that of all the persons of his own or future Ages, writes a Book on purpose to perswade men, that there is no real wisdom, but to fear God and keep his Commandments: that sin is the greatest folly, and the meaner apprehensions men have of it, the more they are infatuated by the temptations to it. But as there are degrees of sinning, so there are of folly in it. Some sin with a blushing countenance, and a trembling Conscience; they sin, but yet they are afraid to sin, but in the act of it they condemn them D selves for what they do; they sin, but with confusion in their faces, with horror in their minds, and an earthquake in their Consciences: though the condition of such persons be dangerous, and their unquietness shews the greatness of their folly, yet because these twitches of Conscience argue there are some quick touches left of the sense of good and evil, their case is not desperate, nor their condition incurable: But there are others who despise these as the reproach of the School of Wickedness, because they are not yet attained to those heights of impiety which they glory in: such who have subdued their E Consciences much easier than others do their sins; who have almost worn out all the impressions of the work of the Law written in their hearts; who not only make a practice, but a boast of sin, and defend it with as much greediness as they [Page] commit it: these are the men, whose folly is manifest to all A men but themselves; and surely, since these are the men, whom Solomon in the words of the Text describes,

(1.) By their character, as Fools, and,

(2) By the instance of their folly, in making a mock at sin; We may have not only the liberty to use, but (1.) To prove, that Name of reproach to be due unto them; and (2.) To shew the reasonableness of fastning it upon them, because they make a mock at sin.

But before I come more closely to pursue that, it will be necessary to consider another sense of these words caused by B the ambiguity of the Hebrew Verb, which sometimes signifies to deride and scorn, sometimes to plead for, and excuse a thing with all the arts of Rhetorick (thence the word for Rhetorick is derived from the Verb here used) according to which sense, it notes all the plausible pretences and subtle extenuations which wicked men use in defence of their evil actions. For as if men intended to make some recompence for the folly they betray in the acts of sin, by the wit they employ in the pleading for them, there is nothing they shew more industry and care in, than in endeavouring to baffle their own Consciences, C and please themselves in their folly, till death and eternal flames awaken them. That we may not therefore seem to beg all wicked men for Fool [...], till we have heard what they have to say for themselves, we shall first examine the reasonableness of their fairest Pleas for their evil actions, before we make good the particular impeachment of folly against them. There are three ways especially whereby they seek to justifie themselves; by laying the blame of all their evil actions, either upon the fatal necessity of all events, the unavoidable frailty of humane nature, or the impossibility of keeping the D Laws of Heaven: But that none of these will serve to excuse them from the just imputation of folly, is our present business to discover.

1. The fatal necessity of all humane actions. Those who upon any other terms are unwilling enough to own either God or Providence, yet if they can but make these serve their turn to justifie their sins by, their quarrel against them then ceaseth, as being much more willing that God should bear the blame of their sins, than themselves. But yet the very fears of a Deity suggest so many dreadful thoughts of his Majesty, Iustice, and E Power, that they are very well contented to have him wholly left out; and then to suppose Man to be a meer Engine, that is necessarily moved by such a train and series of causes, that there is no action how bad soever that is done by him, which [Page] it was any more possible for him not to have done, than for A the fire not to burn when it pleases. If this be true, farewel all the differences of good and evil in mens actions; farewel all expectations of future rewards and punishments; Religion becomes but a meer name, and righteousness but an art to live by. But it is with this, as it is with the other arguments they use against Religion; there is something within, which checks and controlls them in what they say: and that inward remorse of Conscience, which such men sometimes feel in their evil actions (when conscience is forced to recoil by the foulness of them) doth effectually confute their own hypothesis; B and makes them not believe those actions to be necessary, for which they suffer so much in themselves because they knew they did them freely. Or is it as fatal for man to believe himself free when he is not so, as it is for him to act when his choice is determined? but what series of causes is there that doth so necessarily impose upon the common sense of all mankind; It seems very strange, that man should have so little sense of his own interest to be still necessitated to the worst of actions, and yet torment himself with the thoughts that he did them freely. Or is it only the freedom of action, C and not of choice, that men have an experience of within themselves? But surely, however men may subtilly dispute of the difference between these two, no man would ever believe himself to be free in what he does, unless he first thought himself to be so, in what he determines? And if we suppose man to have as great a freedom of choice in all his evil actions (which is the liberty we are now speaking of) as any persons assert or contend for, we cannot suppose that he should have a greater experience of it, than now he hath. So that either it is impossible for man to know when his choice is free; or if D it may be known, the constant experience of all evil men in the world will testifie, that it is so now. Is it possible for the most intemperate person to believe, when the most pleasing temptations to lust or gluttony are presented to him, that no consideration whatever could restrain his appetite, or keep him from the satisfaction of his bruitish inclinations? Will not the sudden, though groundless apprehension of poyson in the Cup, make the Drunkards heart to ake, and hand to tremble, and to let fall the supposed fatal mixture in the midst of all his jollity and excess? How often have persons who have E designed the greatest mischief to the lives and fortunes of others, when all opportunities have fallen out beyond their expectation for accomplishing their ends, through some sudden thoughts which have surprized them, almost in the very act, [Page] been diverted from their intended purposes? Did ever any yet A imagine that the charms of beauty and allurements of lust were so irresistible, that if men knew before hand they should surely dye in the embraces of an adulterous bed, they could not yet withstand the temptations to it? If then some considerations, which are quite of another nature from all the objects which are presented to him, may quite hinder the force and efficacy of them upon the mind of man (as we see in Iosephs resisting the importunate Caresses of his Mistress) what reason can there be to imagine that man is a meer machine moved only as outward objects determine him? And if the considerations B of present fear and danger may divert men from the practice of evil actions, shall not the far more weighty considerations of eternity have at least an equal, if not a far greater power and efficacy upon mens minds, to keep them from everlasting misery? Is an immortal soul and the eternal happiness of it so mean a thing in our esteem and value, that we will not deny our selves those sensual pleasures for the sake of that which we would renounce for some present danger? Are the flames of another world such painted fires, that they deserve only to be laughed at, and not seriously considered by us? C Fond man! art thou only free to ruine and destroy thy self? a strange fatality indeed, when nothing but what is mean and trivial shall determine thy choice! when matters of the highest moment are therefore less regarded, because they are such. Hast thou no other plea for thy self, but that thy sins were fatal? thou hast no reason then to believe but that thy misery shall be so too. But if thou ownest a God and Providence, assure thy self that justice and righteousness are not meer Titles of his Honour, but the real properties of his nature. And he who hath appointed the rewards and punishments of the great D day, will then call the sinner to account, not only for all his other sins, but for offering to lay the imputation of them upon himself. For if the greatest abhorrency of mens evil ways, the rigour of his Laws, the severity of his judgements, the exactness of his justice, the greatest care used to reclaim men from their sins, and the highest assurance, that he is not the cause of their ruine, may be any vindication of the holiness of God now, and his justice in the life to come; we have the greatest reason to lay the blame of all our evil actions upon our selves, as to attribute the glory of all our good unto himself E alone.

2. The frailty of humane Nature: those who find themselves to be free enough to do their souls mischief, and yet continue still in the doing of it, find nothing more ready to [Page] plead for themselves, than the unhappiness of mans composition, A and the degenerate state of the world. If God had designed (they are ready to say) that man should lead a life free from sin, why did he confine the soul of man to a body so apt to taint and pollute it? But who art thou O man, that thus findest fault with thy Maker? Was not his kindness the greater, in not only giving thee a soul capable of enjoying himself, but such an habitation for it here, which by the curiosity of its contrivance, the number and usefulness of its parts, might be a perpetual and domestick testimony of the wisdom of its Maker? Was not such a conjunction of soul and body B necessary for the exercise of that dominion which God designed man for, over the creatures endued only with sense and motion? And if we suppose this life to be a state of tryal in order to a better, (as in all reason we ought to do) what can be imagined more proper to such a state, than to have the soul constantly employed in the government of those sensual inclinations which arise from the body? In the doing of which, the proper exercise of that vertue consists, which is made the condition of future happiness. Had it not been for such a composition, the difference could never have been seen between C good and bad men; i. e. between those who maintain the Empire of reason, assisted by the motives of Religion, over all the inferiour faculties, and such who dethrone their souls and make them slaves to every lust that will command them. And if men willingly subject themselves to that which they were born to rule, they have none to blame but themselves for it. Neither is it any excuse at all, that this, through the degeneracy of mankind, is grown the common custom of the world; unless that be in it self so great a Tyrant, that there is no resisting the power of it. If God D had commanded us to comply with all the customs of the world, and at the same time to be sober, righteous, and good, we must have lived in another age than we live in, to have excused these two commands from a palpable contradiction. But instead of this, he hath forewarned us of the danger of being led aside by the soft and easie compliances of the world; and if we are sensible of our own infirmities, (as we have all reason to be) he hath offered us the assistance of his Grace and of that Spirit of his, 1 Joh 4. 4. which is greater than the Spirit that is the World. He hath promised us those weapons E whereby we may withstand the torrent of wickedness in the world, with far greater success than the old Nicol. Damascen. de moribus gent. p. 9. Ed. Cragii. Gauls were wont to do in the inundations of their Country, whose custom was to be drowned with their arms in their hands. But it will [Page] be the greater folly in us to be so, because we have not only A sufficient means of resistance, but we understand the danger before hand. If we once forsake the strict rules of Religion and goodness, and are ready to yield our selves to whatever hath got retainers enough to set up for a custom, we may know where we begin, but we cannot where we shall make an end. For every fresh assault makes the breach wider, at which more enemies may come in still; so that when we find our selves under their power, we are contented for our own ease to call them Friends. Which is the unhappy consequence of too easie yielding at first, till at last the greatest slavery to sin B be accounted but good humour, and a gentile compliance with the fashions of the world. So that when men are perswaded, either through fear, or too great easiness to disuse that strict eye which they had before to their actions, it oft-times falls out with them, as it did with the Souldier in the Geta in Appiano. Roman History, who blinded his eye so long in the time of the Civil Wars, that when he would have used it again, he could not. And when custom hath by degrees taken away the sense of sin from their Consciences, they grow as hard as (b) Herodotus tells (a) Herod. Thal v. Synes. de laude Calvivitii. p. 77. us the heads of the old Egyptians were by the heat of the C Sun, that nothing would ever enter them. If men will with Nebuchadnezzar herd with the beasts of the field, no wonder if their reason departs from them, and by degrees they grow as savage as the company they keep. So powerful a thing is Custom to debauch Mankind, and so easily do the greatest vices by degrees obtain admission into the souls of men, under pretence of being retainers to the common infirmities of humane nature. Which is a phrase, through the power of selfflattery, and mens ignorance in the nature of moral actions, made to be of so large and comprehensive a sense that the most D wilful violations of the Laws of Heaven, and such which the Scripture tells us do exclude from the Kingdom of it, do find (rather than make) friends enough to shelter themselves under the protection of them. But such a protection it is, which is neither allowed in the Court of Heaven, nor will ever secure the souls of men without a hearty and sincere repentance, from the arrest of divine justice; which when it comes to call the world to an account of their actions will make no defalcations at all for the power of custom, or common practice of the world. E

3. The Impossibility of the Command, or rather of obedience to it. When neither of the former pleas will effect their design, but notwithstanding the pretended necessity of humane actions, and the more than pretended common practice [Page]of the World, their Consciences still fly in their faces, and rebuke A them sharply for their sins, then in a mighty rage and fury they charge God himself with Tyranny in laying impossible Laws upon the sons of men. But if we either consider the nature of the command, or the promises which accompany it, or the large experience of the world to the contrary, we shall easily discover that this pretence is altogether as unreasonable as either of the foregoing. For what is it that God requires of men as the condition of their future happiness which in its own nature is judged impossible? Is it for men to Tit. 2. 12. live soberly, righteously and godly in this world? for that was the end of B Christian Religion to perswade men to do so: but who thinks it impossible to avoid the occasions of intemperance, not to defraud, or injure his neighbours, or to pay that reverence and sincere devotion to God which we owe unto him? Is it to do as we would be done by? yet that hath been judged by strangers to the Christian Religion a most exact measure of humane conversation; Is it to maintain an universal kindness and good will to men? that indeed is the great excellency of our Religion, that it so strictly requires it; but if this be impossible, farewell all good nature in the world; and I suppose C few will own this charge, lest theirs be suspected. Is it to be patient under sufferings, moderate in our desires, circumspect in our actions, contented in all conditions? yet these are things which those have pretended to who never owned Christianity, and therefore surely they never thought them impossible. Is it to be charitable to the poor, compassionate to those in misery? is it to be frequent in Prayer, to love God above all things, to forgive our enemies as we hope God will forgive us, to believe the Gospel, and be ready to suffer for the sake of Christ? There are very few among us but will say they do D all these things already, and therefore surely they do not think them impossible. The like answer I might give to all the other precepts of the Gospel till we come to the denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and as to these too, if we charge men with them, they either deny their committing them, and then say they have kept the command; or if they confess it, they promise amendment for the future; but in neither respect can they be said to think the command impossible. Thus we see their own mouths will condemn them when they charge God with laying impossible Laws on mankind. But if we enquire E further then into the judgements of those (who it may be never concerned themselves so much about the precepts of Christian Religion, as to try whether they had any power to observe them or not); nay, if we yield them more (than, it [Page] may be, they are willing to enquire after, though they ought A to do it) viz. that without the assistance of divine grace, they can never do it: yet such is the unlimited nature of divine goodness and the exceeding riches of Gods Grace, that (knowing the weakness and degeneracy of humane Nature when he gave these commands to men) he makes a large and free offer of assistance to all those who are so sensible of their own infirmity as to beg it of him. And can men then say the command is impossible when he hath promised an assistance suitable to the nature of the duty and the infirmities of men? If it be acknowledged that some of the duties of Christianity B are very difficult to us now; let us consider by what means he hath sweetned the performance of them. Will not the proposal of so excellent a reward, make us swallow some more than ordinary hardships that we might enjoy it? hath he not made use of the most obliging motives to perswade us to the practice of what he requires, by the infinite discovery of his own love, the death of his Son, and the promise of his Spirit? And what then is wanting, but only setting our selves to the serious obedience of them, to make his commands not only not impossible, but easie to us? But our grand fault is, we make impossibilities C our selves where we find none, and then we complain of them: we are first resolved not to practise the commands, and then nothing more easie than to find fault with them: we first pass sentence, and then examine evidences; first condemn, and then enquire into the merits of the Cause. Yet surely none of these things can be accounted impossible, which have been done by all those who have been sincere and hearty Christians; and God forbid we should think all guilty of hypocrisie, who have professed the Christian Religion from the beginning of it to this day. Nay more than so, they have not D only done them, but professed to have that joy and satisfaction of mind in the doing of them, which they would not exchange for all the pleasures and delights of the world. These were the men, who not only were patient, but rejoyced in sufferings; who accounted it their honour and glory to endure any thing for the sake of so excellent a Religion; who were so assured of a future happiness by it, that they valued Martyrdoms above Crowns and Scepters. But God be thanked, we may hope to come to Heaven on easier terms than these, or else many others might never come thither, besides those who think E to make this a pretence for their sin, that now when with encouragement and honour we may practise our Religion, the commands of it are thought impossible by them. Thus we have made good the general Charge here implyed against wicked [Page] men, in that they are called Fools, by examining the most A plausible pretences they bring for themselves.

I now come to the particular impeachment of their folly, because they make a mock at sin. And that I shall prove especially by two things: 1. Because this argues the highest degree of wickedness. 2. Because it betrays the greatest weakness of judgement and want of consideration.

1. Because it argues the highest degree of wickedness. If to sin be folly, to make a mock at it is little short of madness. It is such a height of impiety, that few but those who are of very profligate consciences can attain to, without a long custom B in sinning. For Conscience is at first modest, and starts and boggles at the appearance of a great wickedness, till it be used to it and grown familiar with it. It is no such easie matter for a man to get the mastery of his conscience; a great deal of force and violence must be used to ones self before he does it. The natural impressions of good and evil, the fears of a Deity, and the apprehensions of a future state are such curbs and checks in a sinners way, that he must first sin himself beyond all feeling of these, before he can attain to the seat of the scorners. And we may justly wonder how any should C ever come thither, when they must break through all that is ingenuous and modest, all that is vertuous and good, all that is tender and apprehensive in humane nature, before they can arrive at it. They must first deny a God, and despise an immortal soul, they must conquer their own reason, and cancel the Law written in their hearts, they must hate all that is serious, and yet soberly believe themselves to be no better than the beasts that perish, before men can come to make a scoff at religion, and a mock at sin.

And who now could ever imagine that in a Nation professing D Christianity, among a people whose genius enclines them to civility and religion, yea among those who have the greatest advantages of behaviour and education, and who are to give the Laws of civility to the rest of the Nation, there should any be found who should deride religion, make sport with their own prosaneness, and make so light of nothing, as being damned? I come not here to accuse any, and least of all those who shew so much regard of religion as to be present in the places devoted to sacred purposes; but if there be any such here, whose consciences accuse themselves, for any degrees E of so great impiety; I beseech them by all that is dear and precious to them, by all that is sacred and serious, by the vows of their Baptism, and their participation of the Holy Eucharist, by all the kindness of Heaven which they either enjoy [Page] or hope for, by the death and sufferings of the Son of God, A that they would now consider how great folly and wickedness they betray in it, and what the dreadful consequence of it will be, if they do not timely repent of it. If it were a doubt (as I hope it is not among any here) whether the matters of Religion be true or no, they are surely things which ought to be seriously thought and spoken of. It is certainly no jesting matter to affront a God of infinite Majesty and Power, (and he judges every wilful sinner to do so) nor can any one in his wits think it a thing not to be regarded, whether he be eternally happy or miserable. Methinks then among B persons of civility and honour, above all others, Religion might at least be treated with the respect and reverence due to the concernments of it; that it be not made the sport of Entertainments, nor the common subject of Plays and Comedies. For is there nothing to trifle with, but God and his service? Is wit grown so schismatical and sacrilegious, that it can please it self with nothing but holy ground? Are prophaneness and wit grown such inseparable companions, that none shall be allowed to pretend to the one, but such as dare be highly guilty of the other? Far be it from those who have C but the name of Christians, either to do these things themselves, or to be pleased with them that do them: especially in such times as ours of late have been, when God hath used so many ways to make us serious if any thing would ever do it. If men had only slighted God and Religion, and made a mock at sin, when they had grown wanton through the abundance of peace and plenty, and saw no severities of Gods justice used upon such who did it; yet the fault had been so great, as might have done enough to have interrupted their peace and destroyed that plenty, which made them out of the greatness D of their pride and wantonness to kick against Heaven: but to do it in despight of all Gods judgements, to laugh in his face when his rod is upon our backs, when neither Pestilence nor Fire can make us more afraid of him, exceedingly aggravates the impiety, and makes it more unpardonable. When like the old Tacit. de moribus German. Germans we dance among naked swords, when men shall defie and reproach Heaven in the midst of a Cities ruines, and over the graves of those whom the arrows of the Almighty have heaped together, what can be thought of such but that nothing will make them serious, but eternal misery? E And are they so sure there is no such thing to be feared, that they never think of it, but when by their execrable oaths they call upon God to damn them, for fear he should not do it time enough for them? Thus while men abuse his patience, and [Page] provoke his justice, while they trample upon his kindness, and A slight his severities, while they despise his Laws and mock at the breaches of them, what can be added more to their impiety? or what can be expected by such who are guilty of it, but that God should quickly discover their mighty folly by letting them see how much they have deceived themselves, since Gal 6. 7. God will not be mocked, but Eph 5. 6. because of these things the wrath of God will most certainly come upon the children of disobedience. Which leads to the second thing wherein this folly is seen.

2. Which is in the weakness of judgement and want of consideration, B which this betrays in men. Folly is the great unsteadiness of the mind in the thoughts of what is good and fitting to be done. It were happy for many in the world, if none should suffer in their reputation for want of wisdom, but such whom nature or some violent distemper have wholly deprived of the use of their reason and understandings: But wisdom does not lye in the rambling imaginations of mens minds (for fools may think of the same things which wise men practice) but in a due consideration and choice of things which are most agreeable to the end they design, supposing the end C in the first place to be worthy a wise mans choice; for I cannot yet see why the end may not be chosen as well as the means, when there are many stand in competition for our choice, and men first deliberate, and then determine which is the fittest to be pursued. But when the actions of men discover, that either they understand or regard not the most excellent end of their beings, or do those things which directly cross and thwart their own designs, or else pursue those which are mean and ignoble in themselves, we need not any further evidence of their folly, than these things discover. D

Now that those who make a mock at sin are guilty of all these, will appear; if we consider whom they provoke by doing so, whom they most injure, and upon what reasonable consideration they are moved to what they do.

1. Whom they provoke by their making a mock at sin; Supposing that there is a Governour of the world, who hath established Laws for us to be guided by, we may easily understand, whose honour and authority is reflected on, when the violations of his Laws are made nothing of. For surely if they had a just esteem of his power and Soveraignty, they never durst E make so bold with him, as all those do who not only commit sin themselves, but laugh at the scrupulosity of those who dare not. When Dionysius changed Apollos Cloak, and took off the Golden Beard of Aesculapius, with those solemn jeers [Page] of the unsuitableness of the one to the Son of a beardless Father; A and the much greater conveniency of a cheaper garment to the other; it was a sign he stood not much in awe of the severity of their looks, nor had any dread at all of the greatness of their power. But although there be so infinite a disproportion between the artificial Deities of the Heathens, and the Majesty of him who made and governs the whole world; yet as little reverence to his power and authority is shewed by all such who dare affront him with such a mighty confidence, and bid the greatest defiance to his Laws by scoffing at them. What is there, the Soveraigns and Princes of the earth do more B justly resent, and express the highest indignation against, than to have their Laws despised, their persons affronted, and their authority contemned? And can we then imagine, that a God of infinite Power and Majesty, the honour of whose Laws is as dear to him as his own is, should sit still unconcerned, when so many indignities are continually offered them, and never take any notice at all of them? It is true, his patience is not to be measured by our fretful and pevish natures, (and it is happy for us all that it is not) he knows the sinner can never escape his power, and therefore bears the longer with him: C but yet his lenity is always joyned with his wisdom and justice, and the time is coming when patience it self shall be no more. Is it not then the highest madness and folly to provoke one whose power is infinitely greater than our own is, and from the severity of whose wrath we cannot secure our selves one minute of an hour? How knowest thou, O vain man, but that in the midst of all thy mirth and jollity, while thou art boasting of thy sins, and thinkest thou canst never fill up fast enough the measure of thy iniquities, a sudden fit of an Apoplexy, or the breaking of an Aposteme, or any of the innumerable instruments D of death, may dispatch thee hence, and consign thee into the hands of divine Justice? And wherewithall then wilt thou be able to dispute with God? Wilt thou then charge his Providence with fol [...]y, and his Laws with unreasonableness? when his greatness shall affright thee, his Majesty astonish thee, his Power disarm thee, and his Iustice pro ceed against thee: when notwithstanding all thy bravado's here, thy own Conscience shall be not only thy accuser and witness, but thy judge and executioner too: when it shall revenge it self upon thee for all the rapes and violences thou E hast committed upon it here: when horror and confusion shall be thy portion, and the unspeakable anguish of a racked and tormented mind shall too late convince thee of thy folly in making a mock at that which stings with an everlasting venom. [Page] Art thou then resolved to put all these things to the adventure, A and live as securely as if the terrours of the Almighty were but the dreams of men awake, or the fancies of weak and distempered brains? But I had rather believe that in the heat and fury of thy lusts thou wouldst seem to others to think so, than thou either doest or canst perswade thy self to such unreasonable folly. Is it not then far better to consult the tranquillity of thy mind here, and the eternal happiness of it hereafter, by a serious repentance and speedy amendment of thy life, than to expose thy self for the sake of thy sensual pleasures to the sury of that God whose justice is infinite, and power B irresistible? Shall not the apprehension of his excellency make thee now asraid of him? Never then make any mock at sin more, unless thou art able to contend with the Almighty, or to dwell with everlasting burnings.

2. The folly of it is seen in considering whom the injury redounds to by mens making themselves so pleasant with their sins. Do they think by their rude attempts to dethrone the Majesty of Heaven, or by standing at the greatest defiance, to make him willing to come to terms of composition with them? Do they hope to slip beyond the bounds of his power, C by salling into nothing when they die, or to sue out prohibitions in the Court of Heaven, to hinder the effects of Iustice there? Do they design to out-wit infinite Wisdom, or to find such flaws in Gods government of the World, that he shall be contented to let them go unpunished? All which imaginations are alike vain and foolish, and only shew how easily wickedness baffles the reason of mankind, and makes them rather hope or wish for the most impossible things than believe they shall ever be punished for their impieties. If the Apostate Spirits can by reason of their present restraint and expectation D of future punishments be as pleasant in beholding the follies of men as they are malicious to suggest them, it may be one of the greatest diversions of their misery, to see how active and witty men are in contriving their own ruine. To see with what greediness they catch at every bait that is offered them, and when they are swallowing the most deadly poyson, what arts they use to perswade themselves that it is a healthful potion. No doubt, nothing can more gratifie them than to see men sport themselves into their own destruction, and go down so pleasantly to Hell: when eternal flames become their first E awakeners, and then men begin to be wise, when it is too late to be so: when nothing but insupportable torments can convince them that God was in earnest with them, that he would not always bear the affronts of evil men, and that those who [Page] derided the miseries of another life, shall have leisure enough A to repent their folly, when their repentance shall only increase their sorrow without hopes of pardon by it.

3. But if there were any present selicity, or any considerable advantage to be gained by this mocking at sin, and undervaluing Religion, there would seem to be some kind of pretence, though nothing of true reason for it. Yet that which heightens this folly to the highest degree in the last place is, that there can be no imaginable consideration thought on which might look like a plausible temptation to it. The covetous man, when he hath defrauded his neighbour, and used B all kinds of arts to compass an Estate, hath the fulness of his baggs to answer for him, and whatever they may do in another world, he is sure they will do much in this. The voluptuous man hath the strong propensities of his Nature, the force of temptation which lies in the charms of beauty, to excuse his unlawful pleasures by. The ambitious man, hath the greatness of his mind, the advantage of authority, the examples of those who have been great before him, and the envy of those who condemn him, to plead for the heights he aims at. But what is it which the person who despises Religion, C and laughs at every thing that is serious, proposes to himself as the reason of what he does? But alas! this were to suppose him to be much more serious than he is, if he did propound any thing to himself as the ground of his actions. But it may be a great kindness to others, though none to himself; I cannot imagine any, unless it may be, to make them thankful they are not arrived to that height of folly; or out of perfect good nature, lest they should take him to be wiser than he is. The Psalmists fool despises him as much as he does Religion: for he only saith it in his heart, there is no God; D but this though he dares not think there is none, yet shews him not near so much outward respect and reverence as the other does. Even the Atheist himself thinks him a Fool, and the greatest of all other, who believes a God, and yet affronts him and trifles with him. And although the Atheists folly be unaccountable, in resisting the clearest evidence of reason, yet so far he is to be commended for what he says, that if there be such a thing as Religion, men ought to be serious in it. So that of all hands the scoffer at Religion is looked on as one forsaken of that little reason, which might serve to uphold E a slender reputation of being above the beasts that perish: nay, therein his condition is worse than theirs, that as they understand not Religion, they shall never be punished for despising it: which such a person can never secure himself from, [Page] considering the power, the justice, the severity of that God, A whom he hath so highly provoked. God grant, that the apprehension of this danger may make us so serious in the profession and practice of our Religion, that we may not by slighting that, and mocking at sin, provoke him to laugh at our calamities, and mock when our fear comes; but that by beholding the sincerity of our repentance, and the heartiness of our devotion to him, he may turn his anger away from us, and rejoyce over us to do us good. B C D E

SERMON III. A B Serm. III. Preached at WHITE-HALL.

[Page]

LUKE VII. XXXV. C

But Wisdom is justified of all her Children.

OF all the Circumstances of our Blessed Saviours appearance and preaching in the D World, there is none which, to our first view and apprehension of things, seems more strange and unaccountable, than that those persons who were then thought of all others to be most conversant in the Law and the Prophets, should be the most obstinate opposers of him. For since he came to fulfil all the Prophesies which had gone before concerning him, and was himself the great Prophet foretold by all the rest, none might in humane probability have been judged more likely to have received and E honoured him, than those to whom the judgement of those things did peculiarly belong; and who were as much concerned in the truth of them as any else could be. Thus indeed it might have been reasonably expected; and doubtless [Page] it had been so, if interest and prejudice had not had a far more A absolute power and dominion over them, than they had over the rest of the people. If Miracles, and Prophesies, if Reason and Religion; nay, if the interest of another World could have prevailed over the interest of this among them; the Iewish Sanhedrin might have been some of the first Converts to Christianity, the Scribes and Pharisees had been all Proselytes to Christ, and the Temple at Ierusalem had been the first Christian Church. But to let us see with what a jealous eye Power and Interest looks on every thing that seems to offer at any disturbance of it, how much greater sway partiality and B prejudice hath upon the minds of men than true Reason and Religion; and how hard a matter it is to convince those who have no mind to be convinced; we find none more furious in their opposition to the person of Christ, none more obstinate in their infidelity as to his Doctrine, than those who were at that time in the greatest reputation among them for their authority, wisdom, and knowledge. These are they, whom our Saviour, as often as he meets with, either checks for their ignorance, or rebukes for their pride, or denounces woes against for their malice and hypocrisie: These are they who instead C of believing in Christ persecute him; instead of following him seek to destroy him: and that they might the better compass it, they reproach and defame him, as if he had been really as bad as themselves. And although the people might not presently believe what they said concerning him, yet that they might at least be kept in suspence by it, they endeavour to fasten the blackest calumnies upon him; and suit them with all imaginable arts to the tempers of those they had to deal with.

If any appeared zealous for the present peace and prosperity D of the Nation; and for paying the duty and obedience they owed to the Roman Power, which then governed them: to them he is represented as a factious and seditious person, as an enemy to Caesar, as one that intended to set up a Kingdom of his own, though to the ruine of his Country: That it was nothing but ambition and vain glory, which made him gather Disciples, and preach to multitudes; that none could foretel what the dangerous consequences of such new Doctrines might be, if not timely suppressed, and the Author of them severely punished. Thus to the prudent and cautious, reason E of State is pretended as the ground of their enmity to Christ. But to those who were impatient of the Roman yoke, and watched for any opportunity to cast it off; they suggest the mighty improbabilities of ever obtaining any deliverance by a [Page] person so mean and inconsiderable as our Saviour appeared A among them: and that surely God who delivered their Forefathers of old from a bondage not greater than theirs, by a mighty hand and out-stretched arm, did never intend the redemption of his people by one of obscure Parentage, mean Education, and of no interest in the wor [...]d. To the great men, they need no more than bid them, behold the train of his followers, who being generally poor, the more numerous they were, the more mouths they might see open, and ready to devour the Estates of those who were above them. The Priests and Levites they bid consider what would become of B them all, if the Law of Moses was abrogated, by which their interest was upheld; for if the Temple fell, it was impossible for them to stand. But the grand difficulty was among the people, who began to be possessed with so high an opinion of him by the greatness of his Miracles, the excellency of his Doctrine, and the innocency of his Conversation, that unless they could insinuate into their minds some effectual prejudices against these, all their other attempts were like to be vain and unsuccessful. If therefore they meet with any who were surprized by his Miracles, as well as ravished by his Doctrine; C when they saw him raise the dead, restore sight to the blind, cure the deaf and the lame, and cast out Devils out of possessed persons, they tell them presently that these were the common arts of Impostors, and the practice of those who go about to deceive the people; that such things were easily done by the power of Magick, and assistance of the evil Spirits. If any were admirers of the Pharisaical rigours and austerities (as the people generally were) when mens Religion was measured by the sowerness of their countenances, the length of their Prayers, and the distance they kept from other persons; D these they bid especially beware of our Saviours Doctrine; for he condemned all zeal and devotion, all mortification and strictness of life, under the pretence of Pharisaical hypocrisie; that he sunk all Religion into short Prayers and dull morality; that his conversation was not among the persons of any reputation for piety, but among Publicans and Sinners; that nothing extraordinary appeared in his Life; that his actions were like other mens, and his company none of the best, and his behaviour among them with too great a freedom for a person who pretended to so high a degree of holiness. E

Thus we see the most perfect innocency could not escape the venom of malicious tongues; but the less it enter'd, the more they were enraged, and made up what wanted in the [Page] truth of their calumnies, by their diligence in spreading them. A As though their mouths indeed had [...]en open Sepulchres by the noysom vapours which came out of them; and we may well think no less a poyson than that of Asp; could be under their lips, which so secretly and yet so mischievously conveyed it self into the hearts of the people. The only advantage which malice hath against the greatest Virtue, is, that the greater it is, the less it takes notice of all the petty arts which are used against it; and will not bring its own innocency so much into suspicion as to make any long Apologies for it self. For, to a noble and generous spirit, assaulted B rather by noyse and clamour, than any solid reason or force of argument, neglect and disdain are the most proper weapons of defence: for where malice is only impertinent and troublesom, a punctual answer seems next to a confession. But although innocency needs no defence as to it self, yet it is necessary for all the advantages it hath of doing good to mankind, that it appear to be what it really is; which cannot be done, unless its reputation be cleared from the malicious aspersions which are cast upon it. And from hence it was that our blessed Saviour, though he thought it not worth the while to C use the same diligence in the vindication of himself, which his enemies did in the defamation of him; yet when he saw it necessary in order to the reception of his Doctrine among the more ingenuous and tractable part of his auditors, he sometimes by the quickness of his replies, sometimes by the suddenness and sharpness of his questions, and sometimes by the plain force of argument and reason, baffles his adversaries, so that though they were resolved not to be convinced, they thought it best for the time to be quiet. This was to let them see how easie it was for him to throw off their reproaches as D fast as their malice could invent them; and that it was as impossible for them by such weak attempts to obscure the reputation of his innocency, as for the spots which Astonomers descern near the body of the Sun, ever to eclipse the light of it. So that all those thinner mists which envy and detraction raised at his first appearance, and those grosser vapours which arose from their open enmity when he came to a greater height, did but add a brighter lustre to his glory, when it was seen that notwithstanding all the machinations of his enemies, his innocency brake forth like the light, which shineth more and E more to the perfect day.

But it pleased God, for the tryal of mens minds so to order the matters of our Religion, that as they are never so clear, but men of obstinate and perverse spirits will find something [Page] to cavil at; so they were never so dark and obscure in the most A difficult circumstances of them, but men of unprejudiced and ingenuous minds might find enough to satisfie themselves about them. Which is the main scope of our Saviour in the words of the Text, (and shall be of our present discourse upon them) but Wisdom is justified of all her Children. Where without any further Explication, by Wisdom we understand the method which God useth in order to the salvation of mankind; by the Children of Wisdom, all those who were willing to attain the end by the means which God affordeth, and by justifying, not only the bare approving it, but the declaring of that approbation B to the World by a just vindication of it from the cavils and exceptions of men. Although the words are capable of various senses, yet this is the most natural, and agreeable to the scope of what goes before. For there our Saviour speaks of the different ways wherein Iohn Baptist and himself appeared among the Iews, in order to the same end, v. 33. For Iohn Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, he hath a Devil. A very severe Devil surely, and one of the strictest orders among them, that was so far from being cast out by fasting and prayer, that these were his continual C imployment! But what could we have sooner thought than that those persons who made the Devil the author of so much mortification and severity of live, should presently have entertained Religion in a more free and pleasing humour; but this would not taken either, for the Son of Man comes eating and drinking; i. e. was remarkable for none of those rigours and austerities which they condemned in Iohn, and applauded in the Pharisees; and then presently they censure him, as a gluttonous man, and a Wine-bibber, a friend of Publicans and sinners, v. 34. i. e. the utmost excess that any course of life D was capable of they presently apply to those who had no other design in all their actions, than to recommend true piety and goodness to them. So impossible it was by any means which the wisdom of Heaven thought fit to use, to perswade them into any good opinion of the persons who brought the glad tidings of salvation to them: and therefore our Saviour, when he sees how refractory and perverse they were, in interpreting every thing to the worse, and sensuring the ways which infinite Wisdom thought fittest to reclaim them by, he tells them that it was nothing but malice and obstinacy which was the E cause of it; but if they were men of teachable spirits (who by an usual Hebraism are called the Children of Wisdom) they would see reason enough to admire, approve and justifie all the methods of divine Providence for the [Page] good of Mankind. For Wisdom is justified of all her Children. A

That which I mainly design to speak to from hence is, That although the wisest Contrivances of Heaven for the good of Mankind are lyable to the unjust cavils and exceptions of unreasonable men, yet there is enough to satisfie any teachable and ingenuous Minds concerning the wisdom of them. Before I come more particularly to examine those which concern our present subject, viz. the life and appearance of our Lord and Saviour, it will take very much off from the force of them, if we consider, that thus it hath always been, and supposing humane B nature to be as it is, it is scarce conceivable that it should be otherwise. Not that it is necessary or reasonable it should be so at all, any more than it is necessary that men should act foolishly or inconsiderately; but as long as we must never expect to see all men either wise or pious, either to have a true judgement of things, or a love of Religion; so long we shall always find there will be some, who will be quarrelling with Religion when they have no mind to practise it. I speak not now of those who make a meer jest and scoff at Religion (of which our Age hath so many Instances) but of a sort of C men who are of a degree above the other, though far enough short of any true and solid wisdom; who yet are the more to be considered, because they seem to make a slender offer at reason in what they say. Some pretend they are not only unsatisfied with the particular ways of instituted Religion, any further than they are subservient to their present interest (which is the only God they worship) but to make all sure, the foundations even of Natural Religion it self cannot escape their cavils and exceptions. They have found out an Index Expurgatorius for those impressions of a Deity which are in D the hearts of men; and use their utmost arts to obscure, since they cannot extinguish those lively characters of the power, wisdom and goodness of God, which are every where to be seen in the large volume of the Creation. Religion is no more to them but an unaccountable fear; and the very notion of a spiritual substance (even of that without which we could never know what a contradiction meant) is said to imply one. But if for quietness sake, and it may be to content their own minds as well as the World, they are willing to admit of a Deity, (which is a mighty concession from those who have so E much cause to be afraid of him) then to ease their minds of such troublesom companions as their fears are, they seek by all means to dispossess him of his Government of the World, by denying his Providence, and care of humane affairs. They [Page] are contented he should be called an excellent Being, that A should do nothing, and therefore signifie nothing in the World; or rather, then he might be styled an Almighty Sardanapalus, that is so fond of ease and pleasure, that the least thought of business would quite spoyl his happiness. Or if the activity of their own spirits may make them think that such an excellent Being may sometimes draw the Curtains and look abroad into the World, then every advantage which another hath got above them, and every cross accident which befalls themselves (which by the power of self-flattery most men have learnt to call the Prosperity of the wicked, and the sufferings of good B men) serve them for mighty charges against the justice of Divine Providence. Thus either God shall not govern the World at all, or if he do, it must be upon such terms as they please and approve of, or else they will erect an High Court of Justice upon him, and condemn the Sovereign of the World, because he could not please his discontented subjects. And as if he were indeed arraigned at such a bar, every weak, and peevish exception shall be cryed up for evidence; when the fullest and clearest vindications of him shall be scorned and contemned. But this doth not in the least argue the obnoxiousness of him C who is so accused, but the great injustice of those who dare pass sentence; where it is neither in their power to understand the reason of his actions, nor if it were, to call him in question for his proceedings with men. But so great is the pride and arrogance of humane Nature, that it loves to be condemning what it cannot comprehend; and there needs be no greater reason given concerning the many disputes in the world about Divine Providence, than that God is wise, and we are not, but would fain seem to be so. While men are in the dark they will be always quarrelling; and those who contend the most, D do it that they might seem to others to see, when they know themselves they do not. Nay, there is nothing so plain and evident, but the reason of some men is more apt to be imposed upon in it, than their senses are; as it appeared in him who could not otherwise confute the Philosophers argument against motion, but by moving before him. So that we see the most certain things in the world are lyable to the cavils of men who imploy their wits to do it; and certainly those ought not to stagger mens faith in matters of the highest nature and consequence, which would not at all move them in other E things.

But at last it is acknowledged by the men who love to be called the men of wit in this Age of ours, that there is a God and Providence, a future state, and the differences of [Page] good and evil, but the Christian Religion they will see no further A reason to embrace than as it is the Religion of the State they live in. But if we demand what mighty reasons they are able to bring forth against a Religion so holy and innocent in its design, so agreeable to the Nature of God and Man, so well contrived for the advantages of this and another life, so fully attested to come from God by the Miracles wrought in confirmation of it, by the death of the Son of God, and of such multitudes of Martyrs, so certainly conveyed to us, by the unquestionable Tradition of all Ages since the first delivery of it; the utmost they can pretend against it is, that it is B built upon such an appearance of the Son of God which was too mean and contemptible, that the Doctrine of it is inconsistent with the Civil Interests of men, and the design ineffectual for the Reformation of the World. For the removal therefore of these cavils against our Religion, I shall shew,

1. That there were no circumstances in our Saviours appearance or course of life, which were unbecoming the Son of God, and the design he came upon.

2. That the Doctrine delivered by him is so far from being contrary to the Civil Interests of the World, that it tends

C

highly to the preservation of them.

3 That the design he came upon was very agreeable to the Infinite Wisdom of God, and most effectual for the reformation of Mankind.

For clearing the first of these, I shall consider, (1.) The Manner of our Saviours appearance. (2.) The Course of his Life; and what it was which his enemies did most object against him.

1. The Manner of our Saviours Appearance; which hath been always the great offence to the admirers of the pomp and D greatness of the World. For when they heard of the Son of God coming down from Heaven, and making his Progress into this lower world, they could imagine nothing less, than that an innumerable company of Angels must have been dispatched before, to have prepared a place for his reception; that all the Soveraigns and Princes of the World must have been summoned to give their attendance and pay their homage to him: that their Scepters must have been immediately laid at his feet, and all the Kingdoms of the earth been united into one universal Monarchy under the Empire of the Son of E God: That the Heavens should bow down at his presence to shew their obeysance to him, the Earth tremble and shake for fear at the near approaches of his Majesty; that all the Clouds should clap together in one universal Thunder, to welcome his [Page] appearance, and tell the Inhabitants of the World what cause A they had to fear him whom the Powers of the Heavens obey: that the Sea should run out of its wonted course with amazement and horror; and if it were possible, hide it self in the hollow places of the earth: that the Mountains should shrink in their heads, to fill up the vast places of the deep; so that all that should be fulfilled in a literal sense, which was foretold of the coming of the Messias, Luke 3. 5, 6. That every Valley should be filled, and every Mountain and Hill brought low; the crooked made straight, and the rough ways smooth, and all flesh see the salvation of God. Yea, that the Sun for a B time should be darkned, and the Moon withdraw her light, to let the Nations of the Earth understand that a Glory infinitely greater than theirs did now appear to the World. In a word, they could not imagine the Son of God could be born without the pangs and throws of the whole Creation; that it was as impossible for him to appear, as for the Sun in the Firmament to disappear, without the notice of the whole World. But when instead of all his pomp and grandeur he comes incognito into the World, instead of giving notice of his appearance to the Potentates of the Earth, he is only discovered C to a few silly Shepherds and three wise men of the East; instead of choosing either Rome or Hierusalem for the place of his Nativity, he is born at Bethleem a mean and obscure Village: instead of the glorious and magnificent Palaces of the East or West, which were at that time so famous; he is brought forth in a Stable, where the Manger was his Cradle, and his Mother the only attendant about him: who was her self none of the great persons of the Court, nor of any fame in the Country; but was only rich in her Genealogy, and honourable in her Pedigree. And according to the D obscurity of his Birth was his Education too: his youth was not spent in the Imperial Court at Rome, nor in the Schools of Philosophers at Athens, nor at the feet of the great Rabbies at Ierusalem: but at Nazareth, a place of mean esteem among the Iews, where he was remarkable for nothing so much as the Vertues proper to his Age, Modesty, Humility and Obedience. All which he exercises to so high a degree, that his greatest Kindred and acquaintance were mightily surprized when at 30. years of age, he began to discover himself by the Miracles which he wrought, and the Authority which E he spake with. And although the rayes of his Divinity began to break forth through the Clouds he had hitherto disguised himself in, yet he persisted still in the same course of humility and self-denyal; taking care of others to the neglect [Page] of himself; feeding others by a Miracle, and fasting himself, A to one: shewing his power in working miraculous Cures, and his humility in concealing them: Conversing with the meanest of the people, and choosing such for his Apostles, who brought nothing to recommend them but innocency and simplicity. Who by their heats and ignorance were continual exercises of his Patience in bearing with them, and of his care and tenderness in instructing them. And after a life thus led with such unparallel'd humility, when he could add nothing more to it by his actions, he doth it by his sufferings; and compleats the sad Tragedy of his Life by a most shameful and B ignominious Death. This is the short and true account of all those things which the admirers of the greatness of this world think mean and contemptible in our Saviours appearance here on earth. But we are now to consider whether so great humility were not not more agreeable with the design of his coming into the World, than all that pomp and state would have been which the Son of God might have more easily commanded than we can imagine. He came not upon so mean an errand, as to dazle the eyes of Mankind with the brightness of his Glory, to amaze them by the terribleness of his Majesty, C much less to make a shew of the riches and gallantry of the World to them: But he came upon far more noble and excellent designs, to bring life and immortality to light, to give men the highest assurance of an eternal happiness and misery in the World to come, and the most certain directions for obtaining the one, and avoiding the other: and in order to that, nothing was judged more necessary by him, than to bring the vanities of this World out of that credit and reputation they had gained among foolish men. Which he could never have done, if he had declaimed never so much against the vanity of D worldly greatness, riches and honours, if in the mean time himself had lived in the greatest splendour and bravery. For the enjoyning then the contempt of this world to his Disciples in hopes of a better, would have looked like the commendation of the excellency of fasting at a full meal, and of the conveniencies of Poverty by one who makes the greatest hast to be rich. That he might not therefore seem to offer so great a contradiction to his Doctrine by his own example; he makes choice of a life so remote from all suspicion of designs upon this world, that though the foxes E had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, yet the Son of Man, who was the Lord and Heir of all things, had not whereon to lay his head. And as he shewed by his life how little he valued the great things of the World, so he discovered [Page] by his death how little he feared the evil things of A it: all which he did with a purpose and intention to rectifie the great mistakes of men as to these things: That they might no longer venture an eternal happiness for the splendid and glorious vanities of this present life; nor expose themselves to the utmost miseries of another world, to avoid the frowns of this. From hence proceeded that generous contempt of the World, which not only our Saviour himself, but all his true Disciples of the first Ages of Christianity were so remarkable for; to let others see they had greater things in their eye than any here, the hopes of which they would not part with for all that this B world thinks great or desirable. So that considering the great danger most men are in, by too passionate a love of the [...]e things, and that universal and infinite kindness which our Saviour had to the Souls of men; there was nothing he could discover it more in as to his appearance in the world, than by putting such an affront upon the greatness and honour of it, as he did by so open a neglect of it in his life, and despising it in his death and sufferings. And who now upon any pretence of reason dare entertain the meaner apprehensions of our Blessed Saviour, because he appeared without the pomp and greatness C of the world, when the reason of his doing so was, that by his own humility and self-denyal he might shew us the way to an eternal happiness? Which he well knew how very hard it would be for men to attain to, who measure things not according to their inward worth and excellency, but the splendour and appearance which they make to the world: who think nothing great but what makes them gazed upon; nothing desireable but what makes them flattered. But if they could be once perswaded how incomparably valuable the glories of the life to come are above all the gayeties and shews of this; they D would think no condition mean or contemptible, which led to so great an end; none happy or honourable which must so soon end in the grave, or be changed to eternal misery. And that we might entertain such thoughts as these are, not as the melancholy effects of discontent and disappointments, but as the serious result of our most deliberate enquiry into the value of things, was the design of our Saviour in the humility of his appearance, and of that excellent Doctrine which he recommended to the World by it. Were I to argue the case with Philosophers, I might then at large shew from the free acknowledgements E of the best and most experienced of them, that nothing becomes so much one who designs to recommend Vertue to the World, as a real and hearty contempt of all the pomp of it, and that the meanest condition proceeding from such a [Page] principle is truly and in it self more honourable, than living A in the greatest splendour imaginable. Were I to deal with the Iews, I might then prove, that as the Prophecies concerning the Messias speak of great and wonderful effects of his coming, so that they should be accomplished in a way of suffering and humility. But since I speak to Christians, and and therefore to those who are perswaded of the great kindness and love of our Saviour in coming into the World, to reform it, and that by convincing men of the truth and excellency of a future state, no more need be said to vindicate the appearance of him from that meanness and contempt, B which the pride and ambition of vain men is apt to cast upon it.

2. But not only our Saviours manner of Appearance, but the manner of his Conversation gave great offence to his enemies, viz. That it was too free and familiar among persons who had the meanest reputation, the Publicans and Sinners; and in the mean time declaimed against the strictest observers of the greatest rigours and austerities of life. And this no doubt was one great cause of the mortal hatred of the Pharisees against him, though least pretended, that even thereby C they might make good that charge of hypocrisie which our Saviour so often draws up against them. And no wonder, if such severe rebukes did highly provoke them, since they found this so gainful and withall so easie a trade among the people, when with a demure look and a sowre countenance they could cheat and defraud their Brethren; and under a specious shew of devotion could break their fasts by devouring Widows houses, and end their long Prayers to God with acts of the highest injustice to their Neighbours. As though all that while, they had been only begging leave of God to do all D the mischief they could to their Brethren. It is true, such as these were, our Saviour upon all occasions speaks against with the greatest sharpness, as being the most dangerous enemies to true Religion: and that which made men whose passion was too strong for their reason abhor the very name of Religion, when such baseness was practised under the profession of it. When they saw men offer to compound with Heaven for all their injustice and oppression, with not a twentieth part of what God challenges as his due; they either thought Religion to be a meer device of men, or that these mens hypocrisie E ought to be discovered to the World. And therefore our Blessed Saviour, who came with a design to retrieve a true spirit of Religion among men, finds it first of all necessary to unmask those notorious hypocrites, that their deformities being [Page] discovered, their ways as well as their persons might be the better A understood and avoided. And when he saw by the mighty opinion they had of themselves, and their uncharitableness towards all others, how little good was to be done upon them, he seldom vouchsafes them his presence; but rather converses with those who being more openly wicked were more easily convinced of their wickedness, and perswaded to reform. For which end alone it was that he so freely conversed with them, to let them see there were none so bad, but his kindness was so great to them, that he was willing to do them all the good he could: And therefore this could be no B more just a reproach to Christ, that he kept company sometimes with these, than it is to a Chyrurgion to visit Hospitals, or to a Physician to converse with the sick.

2. But when they saw that his Greatness did appear in another way, by the authority of his Doctrine, and the power of his Miracles, then these wise and subtle men apprehend a further reach and design in all his actions: Viz. That his low condition was a piece of Popularity, and a meer disguise to ensnare the people, the better to make them in love with his Doctrine, and so by degrees to season them with Principles C of Rebellion and disobedience: Hence came all the clamours of his being an Enemy to Caesar, and calling himself, the King of the Iews, and of his design to erect a Kingdom of his own, all which they interpret in the most malicious though most unreasonable sense. For nothing is so politick as malice and ill will is; for that finds designs in every thing; and the more contrary they are to all the Protestations of the persons concerned, the deeper that suggests presently they are laid, and that there is the more cause to be afraid of them. Thus it was in our Blessed Saviours case; it was not the greatest care D used by him to shew his obedience to the Authority he lived under, it was not his most solemn disavowing having any thing to do with their civil Interests, not the severe checks he gave his own Disciples for any ambitious thoughts among them, not the recommending the doctrine of Obedience to them, nor the rebuke he gave one of his most forward Disciples for offering to draw his sword in the rescue of himself, could abate the fury and rage of his enemies, but at last they condemn the greatest Teacher of the duty of Obedience as a Traytor, and the most unparallel'd example of innocency as a Malesactor. E But though there could be nothing objected against the life and actions of our Blessed Saviour, as tending to sedition and disturbance of the Civil Peace, yet that, these men (who were inspired by malice, and prophesied according to their [Page] own interest) would say, was because he was taken away in A time, before his designs could be ripe for action, but if his doctrine tended that way, it was enough to justifie their proceedings against him. So then, it was not what he did, but what he might have done: not Treason but Convenience which made them take away the life of the most innocent person: but if there had been any taint in his doctrine that way, there had been reason enough in such an Age of faction and sedition to have used the utmost care to prevent the spreading it. But so far is this from the least ground of probability that it is not possible to imagine a Religion which aims less B at the present particular interests of the embracers of it, and more at the publick interests of Princes than Christianity doth, as it was both preached and practised by our Saviour and his Apostles.

And here we have cause to lament the unhappy fate of Religion when it falls under the censure of such who think themselves the Masters of all the little arts whereby this world is governed. If it teaches the duty of Subjects, and the authority of Princes, if it requires obedience to Laws, and makes mens happiness or misery in another life in any measure to depend C upon it; then Religion is suspected to be a meer trick of State, and an invention to keep the world in awe, whereby men might the better be moulded into Societies, and preserved in them. But if it appear to inforce any thing indispensably on the Consciences of men, though humane Laws require the contrary; if they must not forswear their Religion, and deny him whom they hope to be saved by, when the Magistrate calls them to it, then such half-witted men think that Religion is nothing but a pretence to Rebellion, and Conscience only an obstinate plea for Disobedience. But this is to D take it for granted that there is no such thing as Religion in the World; for if there be, there must be some inviolable Rights of Divine Soveraignty acknowledged, which must not vary according to the diversity of the Edicts and Laws of men. But supposing the profession and practice of the Christian Religion to be allowed inviolable, there was never any Religion, nay, never any inventions of the greatest Politicians, which might compare with that for the preservation of civil Societies. For this in plain and express words tells all the owners of it, that they must live in subjection and obedience; Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. E not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake; that they who do resist receive unto themselves damnation, and that because whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. Than which it is impossible to conceive arguments of greater [Page] force to keep men in obedience to Authority; for he that A only obeys because it is his interest to do so, will have the same reason to disobey when there is an apprehension that may make more for his advantage. But when the reason of obedience is derived from the concernments of another life, no hopes of interest in this world can be thought to ballance the loss which may come by such a breach of duty in that to come. So that no persons do so dangerously undermine the foundations of civil Government, as those who magnifie that to the contempt of Religion; none so effectually secure them as those who give to God the things that are Gods, and by doing so, B are obliged to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars. This was the Doctrine of Christianity as it was delivered by the first author of it; and the practice was agreeable, as long as Christianity preserved its primitive honour in the world. For, so far were men then from making their zeal for Religion a pretence to rebellion, that though Christianity were directly contrary to the Religions then in vogue in the world, yet they knew of no other way of promoting it, but by patience, humility, meekness, prayers for their persecutors, and tears when they saw them obstinate. So far were they then from somenting C suspicions and jealousies concerning the Princes and Governours they lived under, that though they were generally known to be some of the worst of men as well as of Princes, yet they charge all Christians in the strictest manner, as they loved their Religion and the honour of it, as they valued their souls and the salvation of them, that they should be subject to them. So far were they then from giving the least encouragement to the usurpations of the rights of Princes unde [...] the pretence of any power given to a head of the Church: that there is no way for any to think they meant it, unless we suppose D the Apostles such mighty Politicians, that it is because they say nothing at all of it; but on the contrary, bid every soul be subject to the higher powers; though an Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, whatever he be, as the Fathers interpret it. Yea so constant and uniform was the doctrine and practice of Obedience in all the first and purest ages of the Christian Church, that no one instance can be produced of any usurpation of the rights of Princes under the pretence of any title from Christ, or any disobedience to their authority, under the pretence of promoting Christianity, through all those times E wherein Christianity the most flourished, or the Christians were the most persecuted. And happy had it been for us in these last ages of the World, if we had been Christians on the same terms which they were in the Primitive times; [Page] then there had been no such scandals raised by the degeneracy A of men upon the most excellent and peaceable Religion in the world, as though that were unquiet and troublesom, because so many have been so who have made shew of it. But let their pretences be never so great to Infallibility on one side, and to the Spirit on the other, so far as men encourage faction and disobedience, so far they have not the Spirit of Christ and Christianity, and therefore are none of his. For he shewed his great wisdom in contriving such a method of saving mens souls in another world, as tended most to the preservation of the peace and B quietness of this; and though this wisdom may be evil spoken of by men of restless and unpeaceable minds, yet I will be still justified by all who have heartily embraced the Wisdom which is from above, who are pure and peaceable as that Wisdom is, and such, and only such are the Children of it.

3. I come to shew, That the design of Christs appearance was very agreeable to the infinite Wisdom of God; and that the means were very suitable and effectual for carrying on of that design for the reformation of Mankind. C

1. That the design it self was very agreeable to the infinite Wisdom of God. What could we imagine more becoming the Wisdom of God, than to contrive a way for the recovery of lapsed and degenerate Mankind? who more fit to employ upon such a message as this, than the Son of God? for his coming gives the greatest assurance to the minds of men, that God was serious in the management of this design, than which nothing could be of greater importance in order to the success of it. And how was it possible he should give a greater testimony of himself, and withal of the purpose he came D about, than he did when he was in the world? The accomplishment of Prophesies, and power of Miracles shewed who he was; the nature of his Doctrine, the manner of his Conversation, the greatness of his Sufferings, shewed what his design was in appearing among men: for they were all managed with a peculiar respect to the convincing mankind, that God was upon terms of mercy with them, and had therefore sent his Son into the world, that he might not only obtain the pardon of sin for those who repent, but eternal life for all them that obey him. And what is there now we can imagine so E great and desireable as this, for God to manifest his wisdom in? It is true, we see a great discovery of it in the works of Nature, and might do in the methods of Divine Providence if partiality and interest did not blind our eyes; but both these, [Page] though great in themselves, yet fall short of the contrivance A of bringing to an eternal happiness man who had fallen from his Maker, and was perishing in his own folly. Yet this is that which men in the pride and vanity of their own imaginations either think not worth considering, or consider as little as if they thought so; and in the mean time think themselves very wise too. The Iews had the wisdom of their Traditions which they gloried in, and despised the Son of God himself when he came to alter them. The Greeks had the wisdom of their Philosophy which they so passionately admired, that whatever did not agree with that, though infinitely more certain B and useful, was on that account rejected by them. The Romans, after the conquest of so great a part of the World, were grown all such Politicians and Statesmen, that few of them could have leisure to think of another world, who were so busie in the management of this. And some of all these sorts do yet remain in the World, which makes so many so little think of, or admire this infinite discovery of divine Wisdom: nay, there are some who can mix all these together, joyning a Iewish obstinacy, with the pride and self-opinion of the Greeks, to a Roman unconcernedness about the matters of C another life. And yet upon a true and just enquiry never any Religion could be found, which could more fully satisfie the expectation of the Iews, the reason of the Greeks, or the wisdom of the Romans, than that which was made known by Christ, who was the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. Here the Iew might find his Messias come, and the Promises fulfilled which related to him, here the Greek might find his long and vainly looked for certainty of a life to come, and the way which leads to it, here the Roman might see a Religion serviceable to another world and this together. Here are Precepts D more holy, Promises more certain, Rewards more desireable than ever the wit or invention of men could have attained to. Here are Institutions far more pious, useful and serviceable to mankind, than the most admired Laws of the famous Legislators of Greece or Rome. Here are no popular designs carried on, no vices indulged for the publick interest, which Solon, Lycurgus and Plato are charged with. Here is no making Religion a meer trick of State, and a thing only useful for governing the people, which Numa and the great men at Rome are lyable to the suspicion of. Here is no wrapping E up Religion in strange figures and mysterious non-sense, which the Aegyptians were so much given to. Here is no inhumanity and cruelty in the sacrifices offer'd, no looseness and profaneness allowed in the most solemn mysteries, no worshipping [Page] of such for Gods who had not been fit to live if they A had been men, which were all things so commonly practised in the Idolatries of the Heathens. But the nature of the Worship is such as the minds of those who come to it ought to be, and as becomes that God whom we profess to serve, pure and holy, grave and serious, solemn and devout, without the mixtures of superstition, vanity or ostentation. The precepts of our Religion are plain and easie to be known, very suitable to the nature of Mankind, and highly tending to the advantage of those who practise them, both in this and a better life. The arguments to perswade men are the most B weighty and powerful, and of as great importance as the love of God, the death of his Son, the hopes of happiness, and the fears of eternal misery, can be to men. And wherein is the contrivance of our Religion defective, when the end is so desireable, the means so effectual for the obtaining of it?

2. Which is the next thing to be considered. There are two things which in this degenerate estate of man are necessary in order to the recovery of his happiness; and those are Repentance for sins past, and sincere Obedience for the future: C now both these the Gospel gives men the greatest encouragements to, and therefore is the most likely to effect the design it was intended for.

1. For Repentance for sins past. What more powerful motives can there be to perswade men to repent, than for God to let men know that he is willing to pardon their sins upon the sincerity of their Repentance, but without that, there remains nothing but a fearful expectation of judgement, and fiery indignation? that their sins are their follies, and therefore to repent is to grow wise: that he requires no more from men, D but what every considerative man knows is fitting to be done whenever he reflects upon his actions: that there can be no greater ingratitude or disingenuity towards the Son of God than to stand at defiance with God when he hath shed his blood to reconcile God and Man to each other: that every step of his humiliation, every part of the Tragedy of his life, every wound at his death, every groan and sigh which he uttered upon the Cross, were designed by him as the most prevailing Rhetorick, to perswade men to forsake their sins, and be happy: that there cannot be a more unaccountable folly, than by E impenitency to lose the hopes of a certain and eternal happiness for the sake of those pleasures which every wise man is ashamed to think of: that to continue in sin with the hopes to repent, is to stab a mans self with the hopes of a cure: that [Page] the sooner men do it, the sooner they will find their minds at A ease, and that the pleasures they enjoy in forsaking their sins, are far more noble and manly than ever they had in committing them: but if none of these arguments will prevail with them, perish they must, and that unavoidably, insupportably, and irrecoverably: And if such arguments as these will not prevail with men to leave their sins, it is impossible that any should.

2. For Holiness of Life: For Christ did not come into the World, and dye for us, meerly that we should repent of what is past, Titus 2. 12. by denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, but B that we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. And what he doth expect, he hath given the greatest encouragements to perform: by the clearness of his precepts, the excellency of his own example, the promise of his Grace, and the proposition of eternal rewards and punishments, whereby he takes off all the objections men are apt to make against obedience to the Commands of Christ: the pretence of ignorance, because his Laws are so clear; the pre tence of impossibility by his own example; the pretence of infirmity by the assistance of his Grace; the pretence of the unnecessariness C of so great care of our actions by making eternal rewards and punishments to depend upon it. Let us then reflect upon the whole design of the Gospel, and see how admirably it is suited to the end it was intended for, to the condition of those whose good was designed by it, and to the honour of the great contriver and manager of it. And let not us by our impenitency and the unholiness of our lives, dishonour God and our Saviour, reproach our Religion, and condemn that by our lives which we justifie by our words. For when we have said all we can, the best and most effectual vindication D of Christian Religion is to live according to it: But oh then how unhappy are we that live in such an Age wherein it were hard to know that men were Christians, unless we are bound to believe their words against the tenour and course of their actions! What is become of the purity, the innocency, the candour, the peaceableness, the sincerity and devotion of the Primitive Christians! What is become of their zeal for the honour of Christ, and Christian Religion! If it we [...]e the design of men, to make our Religion a dishonour and reproach to the Iews, Mahumetans, and Heathens, could they E do it by more effectual means than they have done? Who is there that looks into the present state of the Christian World, could ever think that the Christian Religion was so incomparably beyond all others in the world? Is the now Christian [Page]Rome so much beyond what it was while it was Heathen? Nay, A was it not then remarkable in its first times for justice, sincerity, contempt of riches, and a kind of generous honesty, and who does not (though of the same Religion, if he hath any ingenuity left) lament the want of all those things there now? Will not the sobriety of the very Turks upbraid our excesses and debaucheries? and the obstinacy of the Iews in defence and practice of their Religion, condemn our coldness and indifferency in ours? If we have then any tenderness for the honour of our Religion, or any kindness for our own Souls, let us not only have the Name, but let us lead the lives of B Christians; let us make amends for all the reproaches which our Religion hath suffered by the faction and disobedience of some, by the Oaths and Blasphemies, the impieties and profaneness of others, by the too great negligence and carelesness of all, that if it be possible, Christianity may appear in its true glory, which will then only be, when those who name the Name of Christ depart from iniquity, and live in all manner of holy conversation and godliness. C D E

SERMON IV. A B Serm. IV. Preached at WHITE-HALL.

[Page]

ROMANS I. XVI. C‘For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the Power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.’

THese words are uttered by one who was himself D a remarkable instance of the truth of the Doctrine contained in them, Viz. of that Divine Power which did accompany the Gospel of Christ. For what can we imagine else should make him now not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, who not long before was not ashamed to persecute all those who professed it? One, whose spirit was fermented with the leaven of the E Pharisees, and inraged with fury against all who owned the name of Christ, is of a sudden turned quite into another temper, to the confusion of those who employed him, and the amazement of them whom he designed to persecute. Nay, [Page] so great was the change which was wrought in him, that from a Bigot of the Iewish Religion he becomes an Apostle of the Christian, and from breathing flames against the Christians, none more ready than he to undergo them for Christ. If he had only given over his persecution, it might have been thought, that he had meerly run himself out of breath, and grown weary of his former fury, (as greater persons than he did afterwards) but to retain the same fervour of spirit in preaching Christ, which he had before in opposing him, to have as great zeal for making Christians, as he had for destroying them, must needs proceed from some great and unusual B cause. Whilest the Iews thought he had too much learning and interest to become their enemy, and the Christians found he had too much rage and fury to be their friend, even then when they least expected it, instead of continuing an Instrument of the Sanhedrin for punishing the Christians, he declared himself an Apostle and servant of Jesus Christ. And that no ordinary one neither; for such was the efficacy of those divine words, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me, that they not only presently allay his former heat, but quicken and animate him to a greater zeal for the honour of him C whom he had persecuted before. And the faster he had run when he was out of his way, the greater diligence he used when he found it, there being none of all the followers of Christ who out-stript him in his constant endeavours to advance the Christian Religion in the World. And if an unwearied diligence to promote it, an uncessant care for preserving it, an universal concern for all who owned it, and an undaunted spirit in bearing the affronts and injuries he underwent for it, be any perswasive arguments of the love a man bears to his Religion, there was never any person who made a D clearer demonstration than St. Paul did of the truth of his Religion, and his sincerity in embracing it. For his endeavours were suitable to the greatness of his spirit, his care as large as the Horizon of the Sun of righteousness, his courage as great as the malice of his enemies. For he was neither afraid of the malice of the Iews, or of the Wisdom of the Greeks, or of the Power of the Romans, but he goes up and down preaching the Gospel in a sphere as large as his mind was, and with a zeal only parallel with his former fury. He encountred the Iews in their Synagogues, he disputed with the E Greeks in their most famous Cities, at Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and elsewhere, and everywhere raising some Trophies to the honour of the Gospel; nothing now remained but that he should do the same at Rome also. And for this he wants not [Page] spirit and resolution, for he even longed to be there, vers. 11. A n [...]y, he had often purposed to go thither, but waited for a convenient opportunity, v. 13. But while God was pleased otherwise to dispose of him, he could not conceal the joy which he had for the ready entertainment of the Christian Religion by those to whom he writes, and that their saith was grown as famous as the City wherein they dwelt. v. 8. First, I thank my God through Iesus Christ, for you all, that your Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World: and he further manifests the greatness of his affection to them, that without ceasing he made mention of them always in his Prayers, v. 9. B And among the rest of the blessings he prayed for, for himself and them; he was sure not to forget his coming to them, v. 10. Not out of an ambitious and vain-glorious humour that he might be taken notice of in that great and Imperial City, but that he might be instrumental in doing them service as he had done others, v. 11. 13. And to this end he tells them, what an obligation lay upon him to spread the Doctrine of Christ in all places and to all persons, v. 14. I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise. So that neither the wisdom of the Greeks, nor the C the ignorance of the Babarians could hinder St. Paul from discovering to them the contrivances of infinite wisdom; and the excellent methods of divine Goodness in order to mens eternal welfare. And although Rome now thought it self to be the seat of Wisdom, as well as Empire and Power, yet our Apostle declares his readiness to Preach the Gospel there too, v. 15. for which he gives a sufficient reason in the words of the Text; for I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the Power of God to Salvation, &c. Wherein we have considerable these two things, 1. The Apostles boldness D and freeness in declaring the doctrine of Christ, For I am not ashamed, &c. 2. The ground of it in the following words, for it is the Power of God to Salvation, &c.

1. The Apostles boldness and freeness in declaring the doctrine of Christ. It was neither the gallantry of the Roman Court, nor the splendor of the City, not the greatness of her Power, or wisdom of her Statesmen could make St. Paul entertain the meaner opinion of the doctrine he hoped to preach among them. Had Christ come [...], with a great deal of pomp and state into the World, subduing Kingdoms E and Nations under him; had St. Paul been a General for the Gospel instead of being an Apostle of it, the great men of the World would then allow he had no cause to be ashamed either of his Master, or of his employment. But to [Page] preach a crucified Saviour among the glories and triumphs of A Rome, and a Doctrine of so much simplicity and contempt of the world among those who were the Masters of it, and managed it with so much art and cunning; to perswade them to be followers of Christ in a holy life, who could not be like the gods they worshiped, unless they were guilty of the greatest debaucheries, seems to be an employment so lyable to the greatest scorn and contempt, that none but a great and resolved spirit would ever undertake it. For when we consider after so many hundred years profession of Christianity, how apt the greatness of the world is to make men ashamed of the B practice of it; and that men aim at a reputation for wit by being able to abuse the Religion they own; what entertainment might we then think our Religion met with among the great men of the Age it was first preached in, when it not only encountered those weaker weapons of scoffs and raillery, but the strong holds of interest and education? If our Religion now can hardly escape the bitter scoffs, and profane jests of men who pawn their souls to be accounted witty, what may we think it suffered then, when it was accounted a part of their own Religion to dispise and reproach ours? If in the Age we C live in, a man may be reproached for his piety and virtue, that is, for being really a Christian, when all profess themselves to be so, what contempt did they undergo in the first Ages of the Christian World, when the very name of Christian was thought a sufficient brand of infamy? And yet such was the courage and magnanimity of the Primitive Christians, that what was accounted most mean and contemptible in their Religion, viz. their believing in a crucified Saviour, was by them accounted the matter of their greatest honour and glory. For though St. Paul only saith here that he was not D ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, yet elsewere he explains that [...] which is contained in these words, when he saith, God forbid that I should glory in any thing, save in the Cross of Christ, by whom the World is crucified to me, and I unto the World. Gal. 6. 14. i. e. Although he could not but be sensible how much the world despised him, and his Religion together, yet that was the great satisfaction of his mind, that his Religion had enabled him to despise the World as much. For neither the pomp and grandeur of the World, nor the smiles and flatteries of it, no nor its frowns and severities E could abate any thing of that mighty esteem and value which he had for the Christian Religion. For in his own expression, he accounted all things else but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus his Lord, Phil. 3. 8. Which words [Page] are not spoken by one who was in despair of being taken notice A of for any thing else, and therefore magnifies the Profession he was engaged in; but by a person as considerable as most of the time and Nation he lived in both for his birth and education. So that his contempt of the World was no sullen and affected severity, but the issue of a sober and impartial judgement; and the high esteem he professed of Christianity was no fanatick whimsey, but the effect of a diligent enquiry, and the most serious consideration. And that will appear,

2. By the grounds and reasons which St. Paul here gives B why he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, 1. From the excellent end it was designed for, and that is no less than salvation. 2. From the effectualness of it in order to that end, it is the Power of God to Salvation. 3. From the necessity of believing the Gospel by all who would attain that end; to every one that believes, the Iew first and also to the Greek.

1. From the excellent End it was designed for, the recovery and happiness of the souls of men, both which are implyed in the term salvation. For, considering the present condition of humane Nature, as it is so far sunk beneath it self, and kept C under the power of unruly passions; whatever tends to make it happy, must do it by delivering it from all those things which are the occasions of its misery. So that whatever Religion should promise to make men happy, without first making them vertuous and good, might on that very account be justly suspected of imposture. For the same reasons which make the acts of any Religion necessary, viz. that we may please that God who commands and governs the World, must make it necessary for men to do it, in those things which are far more acceptable to him than all our sacrifices of what kind soever, which are D the actions of true vertue and goodness. If then that accusation had been true, which Celsus and Iulian charged Christianity with, viz. that it indulged men in the practice of vice, with the promise of a future happiness notwithstanding; I know nothing could have rendred it more suspicious to be a design to deceive Mankind. But so far is it from having the least foundation of truth in it, that as there never was any Religion which gave men such certain hopes of a future felicity, and consequently more encouragement to be good, so there was none ever required it on those strict and severe terms which Christianity E doth. For there being two grand duties of men in this world, either towards God in the holiness of their hearts and lives, or towards their Brethren, in a peaceable carriage among men (which cannot be without justice and sobriety) [Page] both these are enforced upon all Christians, upon no meaner A terms than the unavoidable loss of all the happiness our Religion promises. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb. 12. 14. This is then the grand design of Christianity, to make men happy in another world, by making them good and vertuous in this: It came to reform this world that it might people another; so to purifie the souls of men, as to make them meet to enjoy the happiness designed for them. This is that great Salvation which the Gospel brings to the world. Heb. 2. 3. and thence it is called the Word of Salvation, Acts 13. 26. the way of salvation, Acts 16. 17. B the Gospel of salvation, Ephes. 1. 13. So that though Christianity be of unspeakable advantage to this world, there being no Religion that tends so much to the peace of mens minds, and the preservation of civil Societies as this doth; yet all this it doth by way of subordination to the great end of it, which is the promoting mens eternal happiness. And the more we consider the vast consequence and importance of this end to mankind, the greater reason we shall find that St. Paul, had why he should not be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. For can we imagine any end more noble that any doctrine can aim at than this? C Supposing the common principles of all Religion to be true, viz. the Being of God, and Immortality of our Souls, there can be nothing more becoming that God to discover, or those Souls to be imployed about, than the way to a blessed immortality. And if we admire those discourses of the Heathen Philosophers, wherein they speak more darkly and obscurely concerning those things, what admiration doth the Gospel deserve, which hath brought life and immortality to light? If we commend the vertuous Heathens, who according to those short and obscure notices which they had of God and themselves, D sought to make the world any thing the better for their being in it, what infinitely greater esteem do those blessed Apostles deserve, who accounted not their own lives dear to them that they might make even their enemies happy? If those mens memories be dear to us who sacrifice their lives and fortunes for the sake of the Country they belong to, shall not those be much more so who have done it for the good of the whole world? Such who chearfully suffered death while they were teaching men the way to an eternal life, and who patiently endured the flames if they might but give the greater light to the world by them. E Such who did as far out-go any of the admired Heroes of the Heathens, as the purging the World from sin is of greater consequence than cleansing an Augaean Stable from the filth of it, and rescuing men from eternal flames is a more noble design [Page] than clearing a Country from Pyrats and Robbers. Nay, most A of the Heathen Gods who were so solemn [...]y worshipped in Greece and at Rome, owed their [...] to such flen [...]er benefits to mankind; that sure the world was very barbarous or hugely grateful when they could think them no less than Gods who found out such things for men: If a Smiths forge, and a Womans distaffe, if teaching men the noble arts of fighting and cheating one another were such rare inventions, that they only became some of the most celebrated Deities which the grave and demure Romans thought fit to worship; sure St. Paul had no cause to be ashamed of his Religion among them, who B had so much reason to be ashamed of their own; since his design was to perswade them out of all the vanities and fooleries of their Idolatrous Worship, and to bring them to the service of the true and ever living God, who had discovered so much goodness to the world in making his Son a propitiation for the sins of it. And was not this a discovery infinitely greater and more suitable to the nature of God, than any which the subtilty of the Greeks, or wisdom of the Romans could ever pretend to concerning any of their Deities? Thus we see the ex cellent end of our Religion was that which made St. Paul so far C from being ashamed of it; and so it would do all us too, if we did understand and value it as St. Paul did. But it is the great dishonour of too many among us, that they are more ashamed of their Religion than they are of their sins If to talk boldly against Heaven, to affront God in calling him to witness their great impieties by frequent oaths, to sin bravely and with the highest confidence, to mock at such who are yet mo [...]e modest in their debaucheries, were not to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, we might find St. Pauls enough in the Age we live in, and it would be a piece of gallantry to D be Apostles. But this is rather the utmost endeavour to put Religion out of countenance, and make the Gospel it self blush and be ashamed, that ever such boldfaced impieties should be committed by men under the profession of it, as though they believed nothing so damnable as Repentance and a Holy life, and no sin so unpardonable as Modesty in committing it. But to use St. Pauls language when he had been describing such persons himself, Hob. 6. 9. We are perswaded better things of you, and things that accompany that salvation the Gospel was designed for, though we thus speak. For certainly nothing can argue E a greater meanness of spirit, than while wicked and profane persons are not ashamed of that which unavoidably tends to their ruine, any should be shy of the profession and practice of that which conduces to their eternal happiness. What is become [Page] of all that magnanimity and generous spirit which the Primitve A Christians were so remarkable for, if while some are impudent in sinning, others are ashamed of being or doing good? If we have that value for our immortal souls, and a future life, which we ought to have, we shall not trouble our selves much with the Atheistical scoffs and drollery of profane persons, who while they deride and despise Religion, do but laugh themselves into eternal misery. And thus much for the first ground of St. Pauls confidence, viz. The excellent end the Gospel was designed for.

2. The effectualness of it in order to that end. It is the B power of God to salvation. Wherein two things are implyed.

1. The inefficacy of any other doctrine for that end.

2. The effectualness of the Gospel in order to it.

1 The inefficacy of any other Doctrine for this end of promoting the eternal salvation of Mankind. If the world had been acquainted with any doctrine before which had been sufficient for the purposes the Gospel was designed for, there would have been no such necessity of propagating it among men; nor had there been reason enough to have justified the Apostles in exposing themselves to so great hazards for the preaching of C it. If the notion of an eternal God and Providence, without the knowledge of a Saviour, had been sufficient to reform the World, and make men happy; it had not been consistent with the wisdom or goodness of God to have imploy'd so many persons, with the loss of their lives, to declare the Doctrine of Christ to the World. So that if Christianity be true, it must be thought necessary to salvation, for the necessity of it was declared by those who were the instruments of confirming the truth of it. I meddle not with the case of those particular persons who had no means or opportunity to know Gods revealed D will, and yet from the Principles of Natural Religion did reform their lives, in hopes of a future felicity (if any such there were) but whether there were not a necessity of such a Doctrine as the Gospel is to be discover'd to the world, in order to the reformation of it? For some very few persons either through the goodness of their natures, the advantage of their education, or some cause of a higher nature, may have led more vertuous lives than others did; but it is necessary, that what aims at the general good of Mankind, must be suited to the capacities of all, and enforced with arguments which E may prevail on any but the most obstinate and wilful persons. But when we consider the state of the World at that time when Christianity was first made known to it, we may easily see how insufficient the common Principles of Religion were, from [Page] working a reformation in it, when notwithstanding them mankind A was so generally lapsed into Idolatry and Vice, that hardly any can be instanced in in the Heathen World, who had escaped both of them. And there was so near an affinity between both these, that they who were ingaged in the rites of their Idolatry, could hardly keep themselves free from the intan glements of vice; not only because many of their villanies were practised as part of their Religion, (and there was little hopes certainly of their being good, who could not be Religious without being bad) but because the very Gods they worship'd were represented to be as bad as themselves. And could they take B any better measure of Vertue, than from the actions of those whom they supposed to have so divine an excellency in them, as to deserve their adoration? So that if there were a design of planting wickedness in the world (which need not be, for it grows fast enough without it) it could not be done more successfully than by worshipping those for Gods, who did such things which good men would abhorr to think of. And yet this was the state of the world then, when the Gospel was preached, and not only of the more rude and barbarous Nations, but of the most civilized and knowing people, as the C Romans themselves; as our Apostle at large proves in the remainder of this chapter, wherein he shews, that though they had means enough of knowing the Eternal God and Providence, yet they were so fallen into Idolatry, and the most vicious practices, that there was no means of recovering them, but by a fuller discovery both of the justice and goodness of God.

I know it will be here objected, that though the generality of men were bad then (as when were they otherwise) yet the Heathens had a kind of Apostles among them, viz. the Philosophers, who sought to amend the manners of men by the D moral instructions they gave them, so that if men were bad, it was not for want of good counsel, but for not observing it, which is all (they say) we have to say for our selves, when we are charged with the great debaucheries of the Christian world.

To which I answer, That our business is not now to enquire whether there hath not been an incomparably greater advantage to the world by Christianity, in the reforming mens lives, than ever was by any of the Heathen Morals; but whether these, taking them in the fairest dress, were so sufficient for E the bringing men to eternal happiness, that there needed not any such Doctrine as Christianity be published for that end? And there are two great things we may charge the best of their discourses with an insufficiency in, for the accomplishment of [Page] this end, which are Certainty, and Motives, or the want of Arguments A to believe, and Encouragements to practise.

1. They were destitute of sufficient certainty; for what a man ventures his eternal state upon, he ought to be well assured of the truth of it. But how was it possible for the World to be reformed by such wise Apostles (if they must be called so) who were perpetually disputing among themselves about those things which were the most necessary foundations of all Vertue and Religion? As though the best Arguments they had to prove their Souls immortal, was because their disputes about them were so. And those seemed among them to gain the B greatest reputation for wit, who were best able to dispute against common Principles; and they managed their business with greatest advantage, who only shewed the weakness of others principles, but established none of their own; which was an unavoidable consequence of the way they proceeded in, for offering at no such way of proof as Christianity doth, they rather taught men to dispute, than to live eternally. Besides, their discourses were too subtile and intricate for the common capacities of men; how long might a man live before an Entelechia would make him know the nature of his soul the better, C or an [...] perswade him to believe its immortality? Insomuch that it is hard to determine, whether the arguments used by them, did not rather hinder assent, than perswade to it? and it seems probable that the honest minded, illiterate Heathens believed those things more firmly than the greatest Philosophers. For plain truths lose much of their weight, when they are rarified into subtilties, and their strength is impaired when they are spun into too fine a thread. The arguments which must prevail with Mankind, must be plain and evident, easie and yet powerful. The natural sense of good and evil in men is D oft-times dulled by disputes, and only awakned by a powerful representation of an infinite being, and a future Judgement: and that by such a way of proof as all persons are equal Judges of the truth and validity of it; such as the Resurrection of Christ is in the Gospel.

2. But let us suppose the arguments certain and suitable, yet what sufficient motives or encouragements could they give to lead a holy and vertuous life, who after all their endeavours to perswade others, remained so uncertain themselves as to a future happiness? So Tully tells us of Socrates himself when he was E just dying, That he told his friends, that only the Gods knew whether it was fitter for men to live or die, but he thought no man did. And although some would excuse this as his usual way of disputing, yet of all times one would think it was fittest [Page] for him then to declare his mind in the most express terms, not A only for the full vindication of himself, but for the comfort and encouragement of his friends. We are sure, Christianity proceeds on those terms, that if a future happiness be supposed uncertain, it declares expresly there can be no sufficient reason given for men to part with the conveniencies of this present life; nay, it supposes the best men to be the most miserable of all others, if there be not a future reward, 1 Cor. 15. 19.—32. Again, what probability was there they should ever perswade the World to vertue and goodness, when the severest of the Philisophers, made it lye in things so repugnant to humane B nature, as goodness is agreeable to it. As when they made it an equal fault for a man to be angry, and to murder his Soveraign; and that all passions are to be destroy'd, that pain and grief are nothing, that vertue in all conditions is a sufficient reward to it self. Which are so contrary to the common sense of mankind, that the only way to perswade men to believe them, is first to perswade them they are not men. So that he was certainly the wisest man among the Heathens, who concluded, that we ought to expect a higher Master to teach us these things, and to acquaint us with the happiness of a future life. C And hereby an answer may be given to Porphyries grand objection against Christian Religion, viz. If it were so necessary for the good of Mankind, why was it so long before it was discovered? Because God would thereby discover the insufficiency of all the means the wit of man could find out to reform the world, without this. That not only the Iews might see the weakness of that dispensation they were under, but the Gentile world might groan with an expectation of some more powerful means to goodness than were yet among them. For when Philosophy had been so long in its height, and had so little influence D upon Mankind, it was time for the Sun of righteousness to arise, and with the softening and healing influence of his beams to bring the World to a more vertuous temper.

And that leads to the Second thing implyed, which is the peculiar efficacy of the Gospel for promoting mens salvation, for it is the Power of God to salvation, and that will appear, by considering how many ways the power of God is engaged in it. These three especially. 1. In confirmation of the Truth of it. 2. In the admirable Effects of it in the World. 3. In the diviue Assistance which is promised to those who embrace it. E

1. In confirmation of the Truth of it. For the World was grown so uncertain, as to the grand foundations of Religion, that the same power was requisite now to settle the World, which was at first for the framing of it. For though the Precepts [Page] of Christian Religion be pure and easie, holy and suitable to A the sense of mankind, though the Promises be great and excellent, proportionable to our wants and the weight of our business, though the reward be such that it is easier to desire than comprehend it, yet all these would but seem to baffle the more the expectations of men, unless they were built on some extraordinary evidence of divine power. And such we assert there was in the confirmation of these things to us, not only in the miraculous birth of our Saviour, and that continual series of unparallel'd miracles in his life, not only in the most obliging circumstances of his death; nor only in the large effusion of divine B gifts upon his Apostles, and the strange propagation of Christian Religion by them against all humane power; but that which I shall particularly instance in, as the great effect of divine power, and confirmation of our Religion, was his Resurrection from the dead. For, as our Apostle saith, Rom. 1. 4. Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead. No way of evidence could be more suitable to the capacities of all, than this, it being a plain matter of fact; none ever better attested than this was, not only by the unanimous consent of all the C witnesses, but by their constant adhering to the truth of it, though it cost almost all of them their lives; and no greater evidence could be given to the World of a divine power, since both Iews and Gentiles agreed in this, that such a thing could not be effected but by an immediate hand of God. So far were they then from thinking a resurrection possible by the juyce of herbs, or an infusion of warm blood into the veins, or by the breath of living Creatures, as the great martyr for Atheism would seem from Pliny to perswade us; when yet certainly nothing can be of higher concernment to those who believe not another life, D than to have try'd this experiment long ere now; and since nothing of that nature hath ever happened since our Saviours resurrection, it only lets us know what credulous men in other things the greatest Infidels as to Religion are. But so far were they at that time from so fond an imagination, that they readily yielded, that none but God could do it, though they seem'd to question whether God himself could do it or no. As appears by the Apostles Interrogation, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? Act. 26. 8. This was therefore judged on both sides to be a matter of so great importance, E that all the disputes concerning Christian Religion were resolved into this, Whether Christ were risen from the dead? And this the Apostles urge and insist on, upon all occasions, as the great evidence of the truth of his Doctrine, and this was the [Page] main part of their Commission, for they were sent abroad to be A witnesses of his Resurrection. Which was not designed by God as a thing strange and incredible to puzle mankind with, but to give the highest assurance imaginable to the World of the truth and importance of Christianity. Since God was pleased to imploy his power in so high a manner to confirm the certainty of it.

2. Gods power was seen in the admirable effects of Christian Religion upon the minds of men: which was most discernable by the strange alteration it soon made in the state of the world. In Iudea soon after the death of Christ, some of his Crucifiers become Christians, 3000. Converts made at one Sermon of St. B Peter's, and great accessions made afterwards both in Hierusalem and other places. Yea in all parts of the Roman Empire, where the Christians came, they so increased and multiplyed, that thereby it appeared that God had given a Benediction to his new Creation suitable to what he gave to the first. So that within the compass of not a hundred years after our Saviours death, the World might admire to see it self so strangely changed from what it was. The Temple at Hierusalem destroy'd, and the Iews under a sadder dispersion than ever, and rendred uncapable of continuing their former Worship of God there: the Heathen C Temples unfrequented, the Gods derided, the Oracles ceased, the Philosophers puzled, the Magistrates disheartned by their fruitless cruelties, and all this done by a few Christians who came and preached to the World Righteousness, Temperance, and a Iudgement to come, whereof God had given assurance to the World, by raising one Iesus from the dead. And all this effected not by the power of Wit and Eloquence, not by the force and violence of rebellious subjects, not by men of hot and giddy brains, but by men sober, just, humble and meek in all their carriages, but withal such as might never have been heard of in the D world, had not this Doctrine made them famous. What could this then be imputed to less than a Divine Power, which by effectual and secret ways carries on its own design against all the force and wit of men. So that the wise Gamaliel, at whose feet St. Paul was bred, seem'd to have the truest apprehensions of these things at that time, when he told the Sanhedrin, If this counsel, or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, least haply ye be found to fight against God. Act. 5. 38, 39.

3. In the Divine Assistance which is promised to those who E embrace it: in which respect it is properly the power of God to salvation; and therein far beyond what the Philosophers could promise to any who embraced their opinions. For, the Gospel doth not only discover the necessity of a Principle superiour to [Page] Nature, which we call Grace, in order to the fitting our souls for A their future happiness, but likewise shews on what terms God is pleased to bestow it on men, viz. on the consideration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Christ our Saviour, Titus. 3. 5. There being nothing in humane nature which could oblige God, to give to Mankind that assistance of his grace whereby they are enabled to work out this salvation the Gospel is designed for, with fear and trembling. The whole B tenor of the Gospel importing a divine power which doth accompany the preaching of it, which is designed on purpose to heal the wounds, and help the weakness of our depraved and degenerate nature. Through which we may be kept to salvation: but it must be through Faith, 1 Pet. 1. 5.

3. Which is the last particular of the words; the necessity of believing the Gospel in order to the partaking of the salvation promised in it; it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes, to the Iew first, and also to the Greek. An easie way of salvation, if no more were required to mens happiness but a C fancy and strong opinion which they will easily call Believing. So there were some in St. Augustin's time, I could wish there were none in ours, who thought nothing necessary to salvation but a strong Faith, let their lives be what they pleased. But this is so repugnant to the main design of Christian Religion, that they who think themselves the strongest Believers, are certainly the weakest, and most ungrounded. For they believe scarce any other proposition in the New Testament, but that Whosoever believeth shall be saved. If they did believe that Christ came into the world to reform it, and D make it better, that the wrath of God is now revealed from Heaven against all unrighteousness, as well as that the just by Faith shall live, that the design of all that love of Christ, which is shewn to the World, is to deliver them from the hand of their enemies, that they might serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of their lives, they could never imagine, that salvation is entailed by the Gospel on a mighty confidence or vehement perswasion of what Christ hath done and suffered for them. And so far is St. Paul from asserting this, that as far as I can see, he never meddles with a matter of that nicety, E whether a single act of Faith be the condition of our justification as it is distinguished from Evangelical obedience, but his discourse runs upon this subject; whether God will pardon the sins of men upon any other terms than those which are declared [Page] in the Christian Religion, the former he calls Works, and the A latter Faith.

I know, the subtilty of later times hath made St. Paul dispute in the matter of justification, not as one bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, but of the Master of the Sentences; but men did not then understand their Religion at all the worse because it was plain and easie; and, it may be, if others since had understood their Religion better, there would never have needed so much subtilty to explain it, nor so many distinctions to defend it. The Apostle makes the same terms of justification and of salvation, for as hesaith elsewhere, Rom 5. 1. We are justified by Faith, B he saith here, the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes; if therefore a single act of Faith be sufficient for one, why not for the other also? But if believing here be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense, as a complex act relating to our undertaking the conditions of the Gospel; why should it not be taken so in the subsequent discourse of the Apostle? For we are to observe, that St. Paul in this Epistle is not disputing against any sort of Christians that thought to be saved by their obedience to the Gospel from the assistance of divine grace; but against those who thought the Grace and indulgence C of the Gospel by no means necessary in order to the pardon of their sins, and their eternal happiness. Two things therefore the Apostle mainly designs to prove in the beginning of it: First, the insufficiency of any other way of salvation besides that offer'd by the Gospel; whether it were the light of Nature which the Gentiles contended for, but were far from living according to it; or that imaginary Covenant of Works, which the Iews fancied to themselves (for it will be a very hard matter to prove that ever God entred into a Covenant of Works with fallen Man, which he knew it was impossible for him to observe) bu [...]t hey D were so highly opinionated of themselves, and of those legal observations which were among them, that they thought by vertue of them they could merit so much favour at Gods hands, that there was no need of any other sacrifice, but what was among themselves to expiate the guilt of all their sins. And on that account they rejected the Gospel, as the Apostle tells us, Rom. 1 [...]. 3 that they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. Against these therefore the Apostle proves, that if they hoped for happiness upon such strict terms, they laid E only a foundation of Rom. 3 27. boasting if they did all which God required, but of misery if they did not; for then, Gal. 3. 1 [...]. Cursed is every one that continues not in every thing written in the Law to do it. i. e. if they sailed in any one thing, then they must fail of all [Page] their hopes; but such a state of persection being impossible to A humane Nature; he shews, that either all mankind must unavoidably perish, or they must be saved by the Grace and Favour of God, which he proves to be discovered by the Gospel: and that God will now accept of a hearty and sincere obedience to his will declared by his Son; so that all those who perform that, though they live not in the nice observance of the Law of Moses, shall not need to fear the penalty of their sins in another life. Which is the second thing he designs to prove, viz. That those who obeyed the Gospel, whether Iew or Greek, were equally capable of salvation by it. Rom. 3. 29 For, saith he, is God B the God of the Iews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Tes, of the Gentiles also: because both Iew and Gentile were to be justified upon the same terms, as he proves afterwards. So that Gods justifying of us by the Gospel, is the solemn declaration of himself upon what terms he will pardon the sins of men; that is, deliver them from the penalties they have deserved by them. For the actual discharge of the person is reserved to the great day; all the justification we have here is only declarative from God, but so as to give a right to us, by vertue whereof we are assured, that God will not only not exercise his utmost C rigour, but shew all favour and kindness to those who by belief of the Gospel do repent and obey. God doth now remit sin as he forbears to punish it; he remits the sinner as he he assures him by the death of Christ he will not punish upon his repentance; but he fully remits both, when he delivers the person upon the tryal of the great day, from all the penalties which he hath deserved by his sins. So that our compleat justification and salvation go both upon the same terms, and the same Faith which is sufficient for one, must be sufficient for the other also. D

What care then ought men to take, lest by mis-understanding the notion of Believing, so much spoken of as the condition of our salvation, they live in a neglect of that holy obedience which the Gospel requires, and so believe themselves into eternal misery. But as long as men make their obedience necessary, though but as the fruit and effect of Faith, it shall not want its reward: for those, whose hearts are purified by Faith shall never be condemned for mistaking the notion of it; and they who live as those that are to be judged according to their works, shall not miss their reward, though they do not think E they shall receive it for them. But such who make no other condition of the Gospel but Believing, and will scarce allow that to be called a Condition, ought to have a great care to keep their hearts sounder than their heads, for their only security [Page] will lye in this, that they are good though they see no A necessity of being so. And such of all others I grant have reason to acknowledge the irresistable power of Divine Grace, which enables them to obey the will of God against the dictates of their own judgements. But thanks be to God, who hath so abundantly provided for all the infirmities of humane Nature, by the large offers of his Grace, and assistance of his Spirit, that though we meet with so much opposition without, and so much weakness within, and so many discouragements on every side of us; yet if we sincerely apply our selves to do the will of God, we have as great assurance as may be, that B we shall be kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation. C D E

SERMON V. Serm. V. A B Preached at WHITE HALL.

[Page]

HEBREWS II. III. C

How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?

WHen the wise and eternal Counsels of Heaven concerning the salvation of Mankind by D the death of the Son of God, were first declared to the World by his own appearance and preaching in it; nothing could be more reasonably expected, than that the dignity of his Person, the authority of his Doctrine, and the excellency of his Life, should have perswaded those whom he appeared among, to such an admiration of his Person, and belief of his Doctrine, as might have led them to an imitation of him in the holiness of his life and conversation. For if either the worth of the Person, or the Importance of the Message might prevail E any thing towards a kind and honourable reception among men; there was never any person appeared in any degree comparable to him, never any Message declared which might challenge so welcome an entertainment from men, as that was [Page] which he came upon. If to give Mankind the highest assurance A of a state of life and immortality, if to offer the pardon of sin, and reconciliation with God upon the most easie and reasonable terms, if to purge the degenerate World from all its impurities by a Doctrine as holy as the Author of it; were things as becoming the Son of God to reveal, as the Sons of men to receive: nothing can be more unaccountable than that his person should be dispised, his Authority slighted, and his Doctrine contemned. And that by those whose interest was more concerned in the consequence of these things, than himself could be in all the affronts and injuries he underwent from men: For the more B the indignities, the greater the shame, the sharper the sufferings which he did undergo, the higher was the honour and glory which he was advanced to: but the more obliging the instances of his kindness were, the greater the salvation that was tendered by him, the more prevailing the motives were for the entertainment of his Doctrine, the more exemplary and severe will the punishment be of all those who reject it. For it is very agreeable to those eternal Laws of Justice by which God governs the world, that the punishment should arise pro portionably to the greatness of the mercies despised: and C therefore although the Scripture be very sparing in telling us what the state of those persons shall be in another life who never heard of the Gospel; yet for those who do, and despise it, it tells us plainly, that an eternal misery is the just desert of those to whom an eternal happiness was offered, and yet neglected by them. And we are the rather told of it, that men may not think it a surprize in the life to come; or that if they had known the danger, they would have escaped it; and therefore our Blessed Saviour, who never mentioned punishment but with a design to keep men from it, declares it frequently, that D the punishment of those persons and places would be most intolerable, who have received, but not improved the light of the Gospel: and that it would be more Mat. 11 23. tolerable, for the persons who had offered violence to Nature, and had Hell-fire burning in their hearts by their horrid impurities, than for those who heard the Doctrine, and saw the Miracles of Christ, and were much the worse, rather than any thing the better for it. But lest we should think that all this black scene of misery was only designed for those who were the Actors in that doleful Tragedy of our Saviours sufferings: we are told by those who were E best able to assure us of it, that the same dismal consequences will attend all the affronts of his Doctrine, as if they had been offered to his own person. For it is nothing but the common flattery and self-deceit of humane nature, which makes any [Page] imagine, that though they do not now either believe or obey A the Gospel; they should have done both, if they had heard our Saviour speak as never man spake, and seen him do what never man did: For the same disposition of mind which makes them now slight that Doctrine which is delivered to them by them that heard him, would have made them slight the Person as well as the Doctrine, if they had heard it from himself. And therefore it is but reasonable that the same punishment should belong to both; especially since God hath provided so abundantly for the assurance of our Faith, by the miraculous and powerful demonstration of that divine spirit which did accompany those who were the first publishers of this Doctrine to the B world. And therefore the Author of this Epistle, after he hath in the words of the Text declared, that it is impossible to escape, if we neglect the great salvation offered us by the Gospel; in the following words he gives us that account of it, that at first it began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him: God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will. So that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, falling upon the Apostles, and the many signs and wonders which were wrought by them, were the great testimony C of God to the world, that these were the persons imployed by himself to declare that Doctrine whereon the eternal salvation of Mankind did depend. And since we have so lately acknowledged the truth of this testimony which God gave to the Apostles, by the solemn celebration of that glorious descent of the Holy Ghost upon them on the day of Pentecost, that which naturally follows from it is, the great care we ought to take lest we be found guilty of neglecting that great salvation which is offered to us in that Doctrine which was attested in so eminent a manner by God himself; and that from the consideration D of our own danger; for how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? wherein are three things considerable:

1. The care God hath taken to make us happy, by offering so great salvation to us.

2. The care we ought to take in order to our own happiness, not to neglect the offers which God hath made us.

3. The unavoidable punishment which those do incur who are guilty of this neglect. How shall we escape?

I need not tell this Auditory how forcible the Negative is, which is expressed by such an interrogation which appeals to E the judgement of all who hear it, and so relies not upon the bare authority of the speaker, but upon the plain evidence of the thing, which others were judges of as well as himself. As [Page] though he had said, if you slight and disesteem the Gospel of A Christ, upon whatever grounds ye do it, if either through too great an opinion of the wisdom of this world you despi [...]e it as vain and useless, if through too mean an opinion of the excellency of Christianity, you reject it either as uncertain in its Theory, or impossible in its practice; or if through too great a love of the pleasures of sin, or a secure and careless temper of mind, you regard not the doing what Christianity requires to make you happy; think with your selves, what way you can find to escape the wrath of God; for my part, I know of none; for if God were so severe against the violation of a far meaner B institution, viz. of the Law of Moses, insomuch that every contempt and disobedience did receive a just recompence of reward, how shall we escape who neglect so great salvation? or as the Apostle elsewhere argues to the same purpose. Heb. 10. 28, 29. He that despised Moses Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? This is a sad subject, but I am afraid too necessary to be spoken to in C the Age we live in; wherein men seem to be inapprehensive of the danger of inwardly despising the Religion they prosess to own, and the neglecting of that which they hope to be saved by. It is strange that it should be so, but much more strange that men should think to do so, and not be called to an account for it. It is not only the gross and open sinner that defies Heaven, and by his oaths and blasphemies dares God to shew his Power and Justice upon him, but the slye and self-deceiving hypocrite that hates Religion while he thinks he loves it; that in his heart contemns it, but is afraid to know that he does so, that ought to D be possessed with a truer sense of Religion, and a greater dread of the issue of the contempt or neglect of it. There is some appearance of ingenuity in an open enmity; but none so dangerous as that which hides it self under the disguise of friendship. In our Saviours time there were several sorts of those who shewed their disesteem of him, some that were so enraged against him, that they contrive all ways for his disgrace and punishment, others could hear him with patience, Mark 4. 19. but the cares of this World, the deceitfulness of Riches, and the lust of other things choaked and stifled all good apprehensions of him, E that they became weak and ineffectual. And those were guilty of making light of the marriage-feast because of other business which they had to mind, Matth. 22. 5. as well as those who offered all the injuries and affronts to his servants that invited them, [Page] v. 6. And as it was in the days of our Saviour, so it is now; A some were eating and drinking, minding nothing but the vain and sensual pleasures of the world; some were buying and selling, so busie in this world, that they had no leasure to think of being happy in another, some were deriding and blaspheming; but all these too wise, or too vain, or too profane to mind the offers of eternal salvation. I wish we could say it were otherwise now, that a sensual and voluptuous, an easie and a careless life in some, that ambition and the restless pursuit after the honour and riches of the world in others, that a profane wit, and a contempt of all that is serious in those that think themselves B too great to be Religious, did not enervate the force of Christianity upon their minds, and make them all though upon different grounds agree in the neglect of their own salvation. But is the case of such men grown so desperate that noremedy can work upon them? hath the love of sin and the world so far intoxicated them, that no reason or consideration whatever can awaken them? have they hardned themselves against all the power of divine Truths with a resolution as strong as death, and as cruel as the grave whither they are going? Will neither the love of happiness, nor the fear of misery, their own C interest, and the wisdom of avoiding so great a danger, the dread of the Majesty and Power of God, and the horror of the great day, prevail at least so far on men to consider, whether these things be true or no; and if they be, what unspeakable solly it is to neglect them? And the better to make that appear, I shall prove these following things:

1. That God by the Gospel hath taken so great care of mens happiness, that nothing but a gross neglect can make them miserable.

2. That nothing can be more unreasonable, than when God

D

hath taken so much care of it, men should neglect it themselves.

3. That it is very just for God to vindicate himself against so gross a neglect, by the severe punishments of the life to come.

1. That God by the Gospel hath taken so great care of mens salvation, that nothing but a gross neglect can make them miserable. For, whatever the mind of man can imagine necessary in order to its own happiness, in its present fallen and degenerate condition, is abundantly provided for by the Gospel E of Christ. For, man was so wholly lost as to his own felicity, that among the ruins and decays of his Nature, he could not pick up so much as the perfect image and Idea of his own happiness; when he reflects upon himself, he finds himself such a [Page] consused mass of folly and weakness, that he can never imagine A that so noble a design should have its ground-work laid upon so course a Being. And rather than believe the foundation of his happiness to be within himself, there is nothing so vain and trifling without him, but he is ready to fall down before it, and cry out, Here I place my selicity. Sometimes he admires the brave shews, and the Pomp and Gallantry of the World, and thinks nothing comparable to a glorious out-side, and a great train of attendants: sometimes he raises himself, and flutters upon the wings of a popular Air, till a cross blast comes and leaves him in the common rout: sometimes his eyes are dazled B with the glory of the more refined and solid pieces of that Earth out of which he was framed, and thinks it reasonable, that the softness of flesh and blood, should yield to the impressions of silver and gold; sometimes he even envies the pleasures of the Brutes, and if it were possible would outdo them in their grossest sensualities: sometimes again he slatters himself, and then adores his own imperfections, and thinks his Passions, Honour; and his Profaneness Wit. So far is vain man from making himself happy, that the first step to it, is to make him understand what it is to be so. But supposing that the true C image of his happiness should drop down from Heaven; and by the place from whence it fell, should conclude where the thing it self is to be found; yet this were only to make him more miserable, unless he withal knew how to come thither. He is sure not to climb up to it by the tops of the highest mountains, nor to be carried thither upon the wings of a mighty wind, he hath no fiery Chariots at his command to ascend with to the Glories above: but only he that maketh his Angels Spirits, and his Ministers a flame of fire, is able to preserve the souls of men from vanishing into the soft air, and to conduct them to the D Mansions of eternal Bliss. It is he only that can make them capable of the Joys of another life, by purging them from the stains and the pollutions of this. And therefore without his grace and favour ever to hope for the happiness of Heaven, must be by fancying a Heaven to be there, where there is no God. So that it is necessary, that the Proposals of this salvation must come from the Author of it, and that with such arguments as may perswade men of the truth of it, and with such motives as may encourage men to accept of them. Now the Gospel of Christ affords us all these things which are necessary to our E happiness, there we have the most agreeable and setled notion and Idea of it, the most large and free offers of divine goodness in order to it, the greatest assurance that these things did immediately proceed from God, and the most encouraging motives [Page] to accept of these offers in order to that great salvation A which is tendred to us.

1. We have the most agreeable and setled notion of true happiness: not such a mean and uncertain thing which lies at the mercy of the continual vicissitudes and contingencies of this present state, but that which is able to bear up the mind of man against all the troubles of this life, and to carry him to a Region beyond them all, where there is a fulness of joy without an allay of sadness after it, and ever-flowing rivers of pleasures that need no dams to make them rise higher, nor falls to make their motion perceived. Our Blessed Saviour never flatters his B followers with the expectation of a felicity in this life; Contentment is the most he hath promised them, and that they may enjoy, if they follow his directions, let this world be what it will, and do what it pleases with them. He never tells his Disciples they may have satisfaction here if they lie upon their beds of down with their heads full of tormenting cares, that the pleasure of humane life lies in the gratifications of the senses, and in making what use they can of the world; he never deceives them with the promise of so poor a happiness as that which depends upon health, friends, prosperity, and having C our own wills. No, but he tells them of a more noble and generous felicity; that will preserve its own state and grandeur in spight of the world; a happiness consistent with loss of Estate, loss of Friends, with affronts and injuries, with persecutions, and death it self. For, when our Saviour begins to discourse of happiness, what another kind of strain doth he speak of it in, than any of those Philosophers who have so much obstructed the happiness of mans life by their voluminous writings and contentions about it. Here we meet with no Epicurean softness, which the sense of true Vertue carried the minds of the more noble D Heathens above; no rigid and incredible Stoical Paradoxes, that make men only happy by the change of names; no Aristotelean supposition of a prosperous life for Vertue to shew its power in; but here the only supposition made, is that which lies in a mans own breast viz. true goodness, and then let his condition be what it will, his happiness is consistent with it. For those above all other persons whom our Saviour calls Blessed, in the beginning of that excellent Abstract of Christianity, his Sermon on the Mount, are, not the rich and great men of the world, but those who to the poverty of their condition add that E Matth. 5. 3. of their spirits too, by being contented with the state they are in; not those, who are full of mirth and jollity, that laugh away one half of their time, and sleep the rest; but they who are V. 4. in a mournful condition, either by reason of their own sorrows, [Page] or out of compassion to others, or out of a general sense of their A own imperfections, or the inconstancy of our present state: Not those, who are ready enough to give, but unable to bear affronts, that think the lives of men a sacrifice small enough for any words of disgrace which they have given them; but V. 5. the meek and patient spirit, that is neither apt to provoke, nor in a rage and madness when it is; that values the rules of Christianity above all the barbarous Punctilioes of Honour. Not those, who are as impetuous in the pursuit of their designs, and as eager of tasting the fruits of them, as the thirsty Traveller in the sands of Arabia is of drinking the waters of a pleasant Spring: B but such who make V. 6. righteousness and goodness their meat and drink that which they hunger and thirst after, and take as much pleasure in as the most voluptuous Epicure in his greatest dainties: Not those, whose malice goes beyond their power, and want only enough of that to make the whole World a Slaughterhouse, and account racks and torments among the necessary instruments of governing the World; V. 7. but such, who when their enemies are in their power, will not torment themselves by cruelty to them, but have such a sense of common humanity, as not only to commend pity and good nature to those above them, but C to use it to those who are under them. Not those whose hearts are as full of dissimulation and hypocrisie, as the others hands are of blood and violence, that care not what they are, so they may but seem to be good: but such whose inward integrity and V. 8. purity of heart, far exceeds the outward shew and profession of it: who honour Goodness for it self, and not for the Glory which is about the head of it. Not those, who never think the breaches of the world wide enough till there be a door large enough for their own interests to go in at by them; that would rather see the world burning, than one peg be taken out D of their Chariot-wheels: but such who would sacrifice themselves, like the brave V. 9. Roman, to fill up the wide gulf which mens contentions have made in the world; and think no Legacy ought to be preserved more inviolable than that of Peace, which our Saviour left to his Disciples. Lastly, not those, who will do any thing rather than suffer, or if they suffer it shall be for any thing rather than V. 10, 11, 12. righteousness, to uphold a party, or maintain a discontented faction; but such, who never complain of the hardness of their way, as long as they are sure it is that of Righteousness; but if they meet with reproaches E and persecutions in it, they welcome them, as the harbingers of their future reward, the expectation of which makes the worst condition not only tolerable but easie to them. Thus we see what kind of happiness it is, which the [Page] Gospel promises; not such a one as rises out of the dust, or is A tost up and down with the motion of it; but such whose never-failing fountain is above, and whither those small rivulets return, which fall down upon Earth to refresh the minds of men in their passage thither; but while they continue here, as the Iews say of the water that came out of the rock, it follows them while they travel through this wilderness below. So that the foundation of a Christians happiness is the expectation of a life to come, which expectation having so firm a bottom, as the assurance which Christ hath given us by his death and sufferings, it hath power and influence sufficient to bear up B the minds of men, against all the vicissitudes of this present state.

2. We have the most large and free offers of divine Goodness in order to it. Were it as easie for Man to govern his own passions, as to know that he ought to do it; were the impressions of Reason and Religion as powerful with Mankind as those of Folly and Wickedness are, we should never need complain much of the misery of our present state, or have any cause to fear a worse to come. There would then be no condition here but what might be born with satisfaction to ones own mind; and the life of one day led according to the principles C of vertue and goodness would be preferred before a sinning Immortality. But we have lost the command of our selves, and therefore our passions govern us; and as long as such furies drive us, no wonder if our easè be little. When men began first to leave the uncertain speculations of Nature, and found themselves so out of order, that they thought the great care ought to be to regulate their own actions; how soon did their passions discover themselves about the way to govern them! And they all agreed in this, that there was great need to do it, and that it was impossible to do it without the principles D of Vertue; V. Lud. Vi [...]. ad S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 19. c. 1. for never was there any Philosopher so bad, as to think any man could be happy without Vertue; even the Epicureans themselves acknowledged it for one of their established Maxims, that no man could live a pleasant life without being good: and supposing the multiplication of Sects of Philosophers about these things as far as Varro thought it possible to 288. (although there never vere so many, nor really could be upon his own grounds) yet not one of all these but made it necessary to be vertuous, in order to being happy, and those who did not think vertue to be desired for it self, yet made it a necessary E means for the true pleasure and happiness of our lives. But when they were agreed in this, that it was impossible for a vitious man to enjoy any true contentment of mind: they fell into nice and subtle disputes about the names and order of [Page] things to be chosen, and so lost the great effect of all their A common principles. They pretended great cures for the disorders of mens lives, and excellent remedies against the common distempers of humane nature, but still the disease grew under the remedy, and their applications were too weak to allay the fury of their passions. It was neither the order and good of the Universe, nor the necessity of events, nor the things being out of our power, nor the common condition of humanity, no nor that comfort of ill natured men, as Carneades call'd it, the many companions we have in misery, that could keep their passions from breaking out when a great occasion was presented B them. For he who had read all their discourses carefully, and was a great man himself, I mean Cicero, upon the death of his beloved daughter, was so far from being comforted by them, that he was fain to write a consolation for himself, in which the greatest cure (it may be) was the diversion he found in writing it. But supposing these things had gone much farther, and that all wise men could have governed their passions as to the troubles of this life (and certainly the truest wisdom lies in that). Yet what had all this been to a preparation for an eternal state, which they knew little of, and minded less? All C their discourses about a happy life here, were vain, and contradicted by themselves; when, after all their rants about their wise man being happy in the bull of Phalaris, &c. they yet allow'd him to dispatch himself if he saw cause, which a wise man would never do, if he thought himself happy when he did it. So that unless God himself had given assurance of a life to come, by the greatest demonstrations of it in the death and resurrection of his Son; all the considerations whatever could never have made mankind happy. But by the Gospel he hath taken away all suspicions and doubts concerning another state, D and hath declared his own readiness to be reconciled to us upon our repentance, to pardon what hath been been done amiss, and to give that divine assistance whereby our wills may be governed, and our passions subdued, and upon a submission of our selves to his wise Providence, and a sincere obedience to his Laws, he hath promised eternal salvation in the life to come.

3. God hath given us the greatest assurance that these offers came from himself; which the Apostle gives an account of here, saying, that this salvation began at first to be spoken by our Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God E also bearing them witness by signs and wonders, &c. Wherein we have all the satisfaction which the minds of reasonable men could desire as to these things: It might be justly expected, that the messenger of so great news to the World should be no [Page] mean and ordinary person; neither was he, for the honour A was as great in the person who brought it, as the importance was in the thing it self: No less than the Eternal Son of God came down from the Bosom of his Father, to rectifie the mistakes of Mankind, and not only to shew them the way to be happy, but by the most powerful arguments to perswade them to be so. Nay, we find all the three persons of the Trinity here engaged in the great work of mans salvation; it was first spoken by our Lord, God also bearing them witness, and that with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. So that not only the first revelation was from God, but the testimony to confirm B that it was so, was from him too; there being never so clear an attestation of any divine truths as was of the Doctrine of the Gospel. From whence it follows, that the foundation whereon our Faith stands, is nothing short of a divine testimony, which God gave to the truth of that revelation of his will; so vain are the cavils of those who say, we have nothing but meer probabilities for our Faith, and do interpret that manner of proof which matters of fact are capable of, in a sense derogatory to the firmness of our Christian Faith. As though we made the Spirit of God a Paraclete or Advocate in the worst C sense, which might as well plead a bad as a good cause. No, we acknowledge, that God himself did bear witness to that doctrine deliver'd by our Lord, and that in a most signal and effectual manner, for the conviction of the world, by those demonstrations of a divine power which accompanyed the first Preachers of salvation by the Gospel of Christ. So that here the Apostle briefly and clearly resolves our Faith; if you ask, Why we believe that great salvation which the Gospel offers? the answer is, Because it was declared by our Lord, who neither could nor would deceive us: If it be asked, How we know D that this was delivered by our Lord? he answers, because this was the constant Doctrine of all his Disciples, of those who constantly heard him, and conversed with him. But if you ask again, how can we know, that their testimony was infallible, since they were but men, he then resolves all into that, that God bare witness to them by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. And those persons whom these arguments will not convince, none other will. Who are we, that should not think that sufficient which God himself thought so! who are we, that dare question E the certainty of that which hath had the Broad Seal of Heaven to attest it! Can any thing make it surer than God himself hath done? and can there be any other way more effectual for that end, than those demonstrations of a divine [Page] power and presence which the Apostles were acted by? Those A that cavil at this way of proof, would have done so at any other, if God had made choice of it: and those who will cavil at any thing, are resolved to be convinced by nothing; and such are not fit to be discoursed with.

4. Here are the most prevailing motives to perswade them to accept of these offers of salvation. There are two passions, which are the great hinges of Government, viz. mens Hopes and Fears, and therefore all Laws have had their sanctions suitable to these two in Rewards and Punishments: now there was never any reward which gave greater encouragement to B hope, never any punishment which made fear more reasonable than those are which the Gospel proposes. Will ever that man be good, whom the hopes of Heaven will not make so? or will ever that man leave his sins whom the fears of Hell will not make to do it? What other arguments can we imagine should ever have that power and influence on mankind, which these may be reasonably supposed to have? Would you have God alter the methods of his Providence, and give his rewards and punishments in this life? but if so, what exercise would there be of the patience, forbearance and goodness of God towards C wicked men? must he do it as soon as ever men sin? then he would never try whether they would repent and grow better? or must he stay till they have come to such a height of sin? then no persons would have cause to fear him, but such who are arrived at that pitch of wickedness: but how then should he punish them? must it be by continuing their lives, and making them miserable? but let them live, and they will sin yet further: must it be by utterly destroying them? that to persons, who might have time to sin the mean while, (supposing annibilation were all to be fear'd) would never have power enough to deterr D men from the height of their wickedness. So that nothing but the misery of a life to come, can be of force enough to make men fear God, and regard themselves; and this is that which the Gospel threatens to those that neglect their salvation, which it sometimes calls Mat. 25. 41. everlasting fire, sometimes Mark 9. 44. the Worm that never dies, sometimes 1 Thess. 1. 10. the wrath to come sometimes 2 Thess. 1. 9. everlasting destruction, all enough to fill the minds of men with horror at the apprehension; and what then will the undergoing it do? Thence our Saviour, reasonably bids men, Mat. 10 28. not fear them that can only kill the body, but are not able to E kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Thus the Gospel suggests the most proper object of fear, to keep men from sin, and as it doth that, so it presents likewise the most desireable object of hope to encourage [Page] men to be good; which is no less than a happiness that is easier A to hope to enjoy than to comprehend; a happiness infinitely above the most ambitious hopes and glories of this world; wherein greatness is added to glory, weight to greatness, and eternity to them all; therefore call'd 2 Cor. 4. 17. a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Wherein the Joys shall be full and constant, the perception clear and undisturbed, the fruition with continual delight and continual desire. Where there shall be no fears to disquiet, no enemies to allarm, no dangers to conquer, nothing shall then be, but an uninterrupted peace, an unexpressible Joy, and pleasures for evermore. And what could be ever B imagined more satisfactory to minds tired out with the vanities of this world, than such a repose as that is? What more agreeable to the minds and desires of good men, than to be eased of this clog of flesh, and to spend eternity with the fountain of all goodness, and the spirits of just men made perfect? What more ravishing delight to the souls that are purged, and Rev. 7. 14 made glorious by the blood of the Lamb, than to be singing Hallelujahs to him that sits upon the Throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever? How poor and low things are those which men hope for in this world, compared with that great salvation, which the Gospel C makes so free a tender of? What a mean thing is it to be great in this world, to be honourable and rich, i. e. to be made the object of the envy of some, the malice of others, and at last it may be, an instance of this worlds vanity; and after all this to be for ever miserable? But O the wisdom of a well-chosen happiness, that carries a man with contentment and peace through this life, and at last rewards him with a Crown of everlasting felicity. Thus we see the Gospel proposes the most excellent means to make men happy, if they be not guilty of a gross neglect of it; and if they be, that is their own act, and they must thank none but themselves if they be miserable. D

2. But I pray, what reason can be given, since God is so tender of our happiness, that we should neglect it our selves? which is the next thing to be spoken to. There are three sorts of things we think we have reason to neglect: Such as are too mean, and unworthy our care, such as are so uncertain, that they will not recompence it, such as our own Interest is not at all concerned in; but I hope there are none who have an immortal soul, and the use of their understandings, can ever reckon their salvation under one of these. E

1. Is it too mean an employment for you to mind the matters of your eternal welfare? Is Religion a beggarly and contemptible thing, that it doth not become the greatness of your minds to stoop to take any notice of it? Hath God lost his [Page] honour so much with you, that his service should be the object A of mens scorn and contempt? But what is it which these brave spirits think a fit employment for themselves, while they despise God and his Worship? Is it to be curiously dressed, and make a fine shew, to think the time better spent at the Glass than at their Devotions? These indeed are weighty imployments, and fit in the first place to be minded, if we were made only to be gazed upon. Is it meerly to see Plays, and read Romances, and to be great admirers of that vain and frothy discourse which all persons account wit but those which have it? This is such an end of mans life which no Philosopher ever thought of. B Or is it to spend time in excesses and debaucheries, and to be slaves to as many lusts as will command them? This were something indeed, if we had any other name given us but that of Men. Or lastly, is it to have their minds taken up with the great affairs of the World, to be wise in considering, careful in managing the publick interest of a Nation? This is an employment, I grant, fit for the greatest minds, but not such which need at all to take them off from minding their eternal salvation. For the greatest wisdom is consistent with that, else Religion would be accounted folly, and I take it for C granted; that it is never the truly wise man but the pretender that entertains any mean thoughts of Religion. And such a one uses the publick Interest no better than he doth Religion, only for a shew to the world, that he may carry on his own designs the better. And is this really such a valuable thing for a man to be contented to cheat himself of his eternal happiness, that he may be able to cheat the world, and abuse his trust? I appeal then to the Consciences of all such who have any sense of humanity; and the common interest of mankind, setting aside the considerations of a life to come, whether to be just and sober, D vertuous and good, be not more suitable to the design of humane Nature, than all the vanities and excesses, all the little arts and designs which men are apt to please themselves with? And if so, shall the eternal happiness which follows upon being good, make it less desireable to be so? No surely, but if God had required any thing to make us happy, which had been as contrary to our present Interest as the Precepts of Christianity are agreeable to it; yet the end would have made the severest commands easie, and those things pleasant which tend to make us happy. E

2. Are these things so uncertain, that they are not fit for a wise man to be solicitous about them? if they will come with a little care, they will say, they are destreable, but too much will unfit them for greater business? But do men believe these things to be [Page] true or not, when they say thus? if they be true, why need they A fear their uncertainty? if they be certain, what pains and care can be too great about them? since a little will never serve to obtain them. Let but the care and diligence be proportionable to the greatness of the end, and the weight of the things, and you never need fear the want of a recompence for all your labour. But suppose you say, if you were fully convinced of their certainty you would look more after them. What hinders you from being so convinced? Is it not a bad disposition of mind which makes you unwilling to enquire into them? examine things with a mind as free as you would have it, judge seriously according to B the reason of things, and you will easily find the interests of a life to come are far more certain, as well as more desireable than those of this present life. And yet the great uncertainty of all the honours and riches of this world, never hinder the covetous or ambitious person from their great earnestness in pursuit of them. And shall not then all the mighty arguments which God himself hath made use of to confirm to us, the certainty of a life to come, prevail upon us to look more seriously after it? Sh [...]ll the unexpressible love of the Father, the unconceiveable sufferings of the Son of God, and the miraculous descent C and powerful assistance of the Holy Ghost have no more impression on our minds, than to leave us uncertain of a future state? What mighty doubts and suspicions of God, what distrusts of humane Nature, what unspeakable ingratitude, and unaccountable folly lies at the bottom of all this uncertainty? O fools, and slow of heart to believe, not only what the Prophets have spoken, but what our Lord hath declared, God himself hath given testimony to, and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed!

3. But is not your Interest concerned in these things? Is it all one to you whether your souls be immortal or no? whether D they live in eternal felicity, or unchangeable misery? Is it no more to you, than to know what kind of Bables are in request at the Indies, or whether the customs of China or Iapan are the wiser, i. e. than the most trifling things, and the remotest from our knowledge. But this is so absurd and unreasonable to suppose, that men should not think themselves concerned in their own eternal happiness and misery, that I shall not shew so much distrust of their understandings to speak any longer to it.

3. But if notwithstanding all these things our neglect still continues, then Heb. 10. 27. there remains nothing but a fearful looking E for of judgement, and the fiery indignation of God. For there is no possibility of escaping if we continue to neglect so great salvation. All hopes of escaping are taken away, which are only in that, which men neglect; and those who neglect their only [Page] way to salvation, must needs be miserable. How can that man A ever hope to be saved by him whose blood he despises and tramples under foot? What grace and favour can he expect from God, who hath done despight unto the Spirit of Grace? That hath cast away with reproach and contempt the greatest kindness and offers of Heaven. What can save him that resolves to be damned, and every one does so, who knows he shall be damned, if he lives in his sins, and yet continues to do so? God himself, in whose only pity our hopes are, hath irreversibly decreed that he will have no pity upon those, who despise his goodness, slight his threatnings, abuse his patience, and sin the more because he B offers to pardon. It is not any [...]elight that God takes in the miseries of his Creatures, which makes him punish them; but shall not God vindicate his own honour against obstinate and impenitent sinners? He declares before hand, that he is far from delighting in their ruine, and that is the reason he hath made such large offers, and used so many means to make them happy; but if men resolve to despise his offers, and slight the means of their salvation, shall not God be just without being thought to be cruel? And we may assure our selves, none shall ever suffer, beyond the just desert of their sins, for punishment as the C Apostle tells us in the words before the Text, is nothing but a just recompence of reward. And if there were such a one proportionable to the violation of the Law delivered by Angels; how shall we think to escape who neglect a more excellent means of happiness, which was delivered by our Lord himself? If God did not hate sin, and there were not a punishment belonging to it, why did the Son of God die for the expiation of it? and if his death were the only means of expiation, how is it possible that those who neglect that, should escape the punishment not only of their other sins, but of that great contempt of the means of D our salvation by him? Let us not then think to trifle with God, as though it were impossible a Being so merciful and kind, should ever punish his Creatures with the miseries of another life: For, however we may deceive our selves, Gal. 6. [...], 8. God will not be mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap; for he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the fl [...]sh reap corruption: but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

I shall only propound some few Considerations, to prevent so great a neglect as that of your salvation is.

1. Consider, what it is you neglect, the offer of Eternal Happiness, E the greatest kindness that ever was expressed to the World, the foundation of your present peace, the end of your beings, the stay of your minds, the great desire of your Souls, the utmost felicity that humane Nature is capable of. Is it nothing [Page] to neglect the favour of a Prince, the kindness of Great A Men, the offers of a large and plentiful Estate; but these are nothing to the neglect of the favour of God, the love of his Son, and that salvation which he hath purchased for you. Nay, it is not a bare neglect, but it implies in it a mighty contempt not only of the things offered, but of the kindness of him who offers them. If men had any due regard for God or themselves, if they had any esteem for his love, or their own welfare, they would be much more serious in Religion than they are. When I see a person wholly immersed in affairs of the World, or spending his time in luxury and vanity, can I possibly think that B man hath any esteem of God or of his own Soul? When I find one very serious in the pursuit of his Designs in the World, thoughtful and busie, subtle in contriving them, careful in managing them; but very formal, remiss and negligent in all affairs of Religion, neither inquisitive about them, nor serious in minding them; what can we otherwise think, but that such a one doth really think the things of the World better worth looking after, than those which concern his eternal salvation. But consider, before it be too late, and repent of so great folly. Value an immortal Soul as you ought to do, think what Reconciliation C with God, and the Pardon of sin is worth, slight not the dear Purchase which was bought at no meaner a rate than the Blood of the Son of God, and then you cannot but mind the great salvation which God hath tendered you.

2. Consider, on what terms you neglect it, or what the things are for whose sake you are so great enemies to your own salvation. Have you ever found that contentment in sin or the vanities of the World, that for the sake of them, you are willing to be forever miserable? What will you think of all your debaucheries, and your neglects of God and your selves, when D you come to die? what would you give then (if it were in your power to redeem your lost time) that you had spent your time less to the satisfaction of your sensual desires, and more in seeking to please God? How uncomfortable will the remembrance be of all your excesses, oaths, injustice and profaneness, when death approaches, and judgement follows it? What peace of mind will there then be to those who have served God with faithfulness, and have endeavoured to work out their salvation, though it hath been with fear and trembling? But what would it then profit a man to have gained the whole World, and to E lose his own soul? Nay, what unspeakable losers must they then be, that lose their Souls for that which hath no value at all, if compared with the World.

3. Consider, what follows upon this neglect, not only the [Page] loss of great salvation; but the incurring as great damnation for A it. The Scripture describes the miseries of the life to come, not meerly by negatives, but by the most sensible and painful things. If destruction be dreadful, what is everlasting destruction? if the anguish of the soul, and the pains of the body be so troublesom, what will the destruction be both of Body and Soul in Hell? If a Serpent gnawing in our bowels be a representation of an insupportable misery here, what will that be of the Worm that never dies? if a raging and devouring fire, which can last but till it hath consumed a fading substance, be in its appearance so amazing, and in its pain so violent, what then B will the enduring be of that wrath of God, which shall burn like fire, and yet be everlasting? Consider then of these things, while God gives you time to consider of them; and think it an inestimable mercy that you have yet time to repent of your sins, to beg mercy at the hands of God, to redeem your time, to depart from iniquity, to be frequent in Prayer, careful of your Actions, and in all things obedient to the will of God, and so God will pardon your former neglects, and grant you this great salvation. C D E

SERMON VI. Serm. VI. A B Preached on GOOD-FRYDAY before the Lord Mayor, &c.

[Page]

HEBREWS XII. III. C‘For, consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary, and faint in your minds.’

IT hath never yet been so well with the D World, and we have no great reason to hope it ever will be so; that the best of things, or of men, should meet with entertainment in it, suitable to their own worth and excellency. If it were once to be hoped, that all Mankind would be wise and sober, that their judgements would be according to the truth of things, and their actions suitable to their judgements; we might then reasonably E expect that nothing would be valued so much as true goodness, nothing so much in contempt and disgrace as impiety and profaneness. But if we find it much otherwise in the Age we live in; we have so much the less cause to wonder at it; [Page] because it hath been thus, in those times we might have thought A would have been far better than our own. I mean those times and ages, wherein there were not only great things first spoken and delivered to Mankind, but examples as great as the things themselves; but these did so little prevail on the stupid and unthankful world, that they among whom the Son of God did first manifest himself, seem'd only solicitous to make good one Prophesic concerning him, viz. That he should be despised and rejected of men. And they who suffer'd their malice to live as long as he did, were not contented to let it dye with him; but their fury increases as the Gospel does: and wherever it had B spread it self, they pursue it with all the rude clamors, and violent persecutions which themselves or their factors could raise against it. This we have a large testimony of, in those Iewish Christians to whom this Epistle was written; who had no sooner embraced the Christian Religion, but they were set upon by a whole army of persecutions. Heb. 10. 32. But call to remembrance the former days, in which after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions. As though the great enemy of souls, and therefore of Christians, had watched the first opportunity to make the strongest impression upon C them, while they were yet young and unexperienced; and therefore less able to resist so sharp an encounter. He had found how unsuccessful the offer of the good things of this World had been with their Lord and Master; and therefore was resolved to try what a severer course would do with all his followers. But the same spirit by which he despised all the Glories of the World, which the Tempter would have made him believe he was the disposer of; enabled them with a mighty courage, and strange transports of joy, not only to bear their own share of reproaches and afflictions, but a part of theirs who D suffer'd with them, v. 33, 34. But lest through continual duty, occasion'd by the hatred of their persecutors, and the multitude of their afflictions; their courage should abate, and their spirits saint; the Apostle finds it necessary, not only to put them in mind of their former magnanimity; but to make use of all arguments that might be powerful with them, to keep up the same vigour and constancy of mind in bearing their sufferings, which they had at first. For he well knew, how much it would tend to the dishonour of the Gospel, as well as to their own discomfort; if after such an early proof of a E great and undaunted spirit, it should be said of them, as was once of a great Roman Captain, Ultima Primis cedebant; that they should decline in their reputation as they did in their years; and at last sink under that weight of duty which they [Page] had born with so much honour before. Therefore, as a Genetal A in the Field, after a sharp and fierce encounter at first, with a mighty resolution by his Souldiers; when he finds by the number and fresh recruits of the enemy, that his smaller forces are like to be born down before them; and through meer weariness of fighting are ready to turn their backs, or yield themselves up to the enemies mercy; lie conjures them by the honour they have gain'd, and the courage they had already expressed, by their own interest, and the example of their Leaders, by the hopes of glory, and the fears of punishment, that they would bear the last shock of their enemies force, and rather B be the Trophies of their Courage than of their Triumphs: so does our Apostle, when he finds some among them begin to debate, whether they had best to stand it out or no; he conjures them, 1. By the remembrance of their own former courage, whereby they did bear as sharp tryals as these could be, with the greatest chearfulness and constancy; and what could they gain by yielding at last, but great dishonour to themselves, that they had suffer'd so long to no purpose, unless it were to discover their own weakness and inconstancy. 2. By the hopes of a reward which would surely follow their faithfulness; C v. 35, 36. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise: and the time will not be long ere ye come to enjoy it, v. 37. but if ye draw back, you lose all your former labours, for he who alone is able to recompence you, hath said, that if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him, v. 38. and then from the example of himself, and all the genuine followers of Christ, but we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul, v. 39. D But lest these examples should not be enough to perswade them; he conjures them by the name of all those who were as eminent for the greatness of their minds as the strength of their Faith; who have despised the frowns as well as the smiles of the world; and were not discouraged by the severest tryals from placing their confidence in God, and their hopes in a life to come; and all this done by persons who had not received the Promise: Heb. 11. 39. and could there be a greater disparagement to the clearness of that light we enjoy above them, if we only grew fainter by it? And therefore in the beginning of this Chapter E he encourages them by that army of Martyrs which had gone before them, by that Cloud of witnesses which did both direct and refresh them, that they would lay aside every thing which was apt to oppress or dishearten them, but especially their sinful [Page]fears, which they were so easily betray'd by, and so run with patience A the race that was set before them, v. 1. But, saith he, if none of these will prevail with you, there is an example yet behind, which ought above all others to heighten your courage, and that is, of the Captain of your salvation, the author and sinisher of your faith, under whom you serve, and from whom you expect your reward; and as Caesar once said to his Souldiers, when he saw them ready to retreat out of the field, Videte quem, & quo loco Imperatorem deserturi estis. Remember what kind of General you forsake, and in what place you leave him: one whom you have vow'd your lives and your service to, one who B hath thought nothing too dear, which was to be done for your good, one that will be ready to reward the least service you can do for him, one that is ready to assist you to the utmost in what you undertake, one that hath already undergone far more for your sakes, than ever you can do for his; therefore, Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary, and faint in your minds.

In which words we have represented to us, the unparallel'd example of courage and patience under sufferings, in our Lord and Saviour; and the great influence that it ought to have on C all those who are call'd by his Name, that they would not dishonour so excellent a pattern of enduring sufferings, by weakness or dejection of mind. Christianity is a Religion which above all others does arm men against all the contingencies and miseries of the life of man: yea, it makes them serviceable to the most advantageous purpo [...]es that the greatest blessings can be designed for. It raises the minds of men higher than barely to consider, the common condition of humane nature, the unavoidableness of such things which are out of our own power, and the unreasonableness of tormenting our selves about the D things which are so, and that most mens conditions in the world as to their contentment, depends more upon their minds, than their outward circumstances; though these are things very fit for us as men to consider and make use of; yet they do not reach to that height, which the consideration of a life to come, and the tendency of all our sufferings here to the inhancement of our future glory may raise us to. Especially considering not only the weight of the arguments in themselves, but the force they receive from the example of him, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the Cross, and despised the shame, E and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. By which mighty instance we find, that the sufferings of this life are so far from being inconsistent with the joys of another, that he who is [...]. 1 [...]. the Captain of salvation, was made perfect [Page]through sufferings, and therefore none of his followers have A cause to be dejected under them. But that we may the better understand the force of this argument, we shall consider,

1. What those things were which he endured.

2. From whom he suffer'd them, it was the contradiction of sinners against himself.

3. In that Way and manner he underwent them.

4. For what ends he did it. And when we have considered these, we shall see the influence this example of Christs sufferings ought to have upon our constancy and patience: which will be the most useful improvement of it to us.

B

1. What those things were which Christ endured; which are here comprehended under those words, the contradiction of sinners. It is agreed by the best Expositors, both Greek and Latin, that under this phrase of the contradiction of sinners, the whole history of our Saviours sufferings is comprehended. All the injuries, reproaches, false accusations, all the cruelties, indignities, and violence, which were offer'd him, from the time of his publick appearance to his expiring upon the Cross, being undergone by him, by the malice of unreasonable men, may be call'd the contradiction of sinners. For the sense of this word C extends as well to actions as words; and the sum of all that which our Saviour suffer'd from them, may be reduced under these heads. 1. The ill entertainment of his Doctrine. 2. The disparagement of his Miracles. 3. The violence offer'd to his Person.

1. The ill entertainment of his Doctrine; which must needs seem very strange to those who do not consider what a difficult access the clearest reason hath to the minds of such who are governed by interest and prejudice. Though all the Prophesies concerning the Messias were fulfilled in him; though D the expectations of the people were great at that time concerning the appearance of him that was to redeem his people; though all the characters of time, place, and person, did fully agree to what was foretold by the Prophets; though his Doctrine were as becoming the Son of God to reveal, as the sons of men to receive; though the unspot [...]ed innocency of his life were so great, as made him weary of his own that betray'd him: yet because he came not with the pomp and splendor which they expected, they despise his Person, revile his Doctrine, persecute his followers, and contrive his ruine. What E could have been imagined more probable, than that the Iewish Nation, which had waited long in expectation of the Messias coming, should have welcom'd his approach with the greatest joy, and receiv'd the Message he brought with a kindness [Page] only short of that which he shewed in coming among them? A Was it nothing to be eased of that heavy burden of the Ceremonial Law, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear? and that God was willing to exchange the chargeable and troublesome service of the Temple, for the more reasonable and spiritual Worship of himself? Was it nothing to have the Promises of a Land which now groaned under the weight of its oppressions, turned into those of an eternal state of bliss and immortality? and to change the Lamps of the Temple, for the glorious appearance of the Sun of Righteousness? Was it nothing to have an offer of Peace and Reconciliation with B God made them, after they had suffer'd so much under the sury of his displeasure? Was a meer temporal deliverance by some mighty Conquerour from the subjection they were in to the Roman Power, so much more valuable a thing, than an eternal redemption from the powers of Hell and the Grave? Are the pomps and vanities of this present life, such great things in Gods account, that it was not possible for his Son to appear without them? Nay, how unsuitable had it been for one who came to preach humility, patience, self-denyal, and contempt of the world, to have made an ostentation of the C State and Grandeur of it? So that either he must have changed his Doctrine, or rendred himself lyable to the suspicion of seeking to get this world by the preaching of another. And if his Doctrine had been of another kind, he might have been esteemed a great person among the Iews, but not the Son of God, or the promised Messias, in whom all Nations of the Earth should be blessed. Which surely they would never have thought themselves to have been, in one, who must have subdued the neighbour Nations to advance the honour of his own. But since the Son of God thought fit to appear in another manner D than they expected him, they thought themselves too great to be saved by so mean a Saviour. If he had made all the Kingdoms of the Earth to have bowed under him, and the Nations about them to have been all tributaries to them; if Ierusalem had been made the Seat of an Empire as great as the World it self, they would then have gloried in his Name, and entertained whatever he had said, whether true or false, with a wonderful Veneration. But Truth in an humble dress meets with few admirers; they could not imagine so much Power and Majesty could ever shroud it self under so plain a disguise. E Thus Christ 1 John 11. came to his own, and his own received him not. Yea, those that should have known him the best of all others; those who frequently conversed with him, and heard him speak as never man spake, and saw him do what never man [Page] did, were yet so blinded by the meanness of his Parentage and A Education, that they baffle their own Reason, and persist in their Infidelity, because they knew the place and manner of his breeding; the names of his Mother and his Brethren and Sisters; Matt. 13. 55, 56. are they not all with us? whence then hath this man all these things? As though, Is not this the Carpenters Son, had been sufficient answer to all he could say or do.

2. The disparagement of his Miracles. Since the bare proposal of his Doctrine, though never so reasonable, could not prevail with them to believe him to be the Son of God, he offers them a further proof of it by the mighty works which were B wrought by him. And though the more ingenuous among them were ready to acknowledge, John 3. 2. that no man could do the things which he did, unless God were with him: yet they who were resolved to hear and see, and not understand; when they found it not for their credit, to deny matters of fact so universally known and attested, they seek all the means to blast the reputation of them that may be. Sometimes raising popular insinuations against him, that he was a man of no austere life, a friend of Publicans and sinners, one that could choose no other day to do his works on, but that very day wherein God himself C did rest from his; and therefore no great regard was to be had to what such a one did. When these arts would not take, but the people found the benefit of his Miracles, in healing the sick, curing the blind and the lame, feeding the hungry; then they undervalue all these in comparison with the wonders that were wrought by Moses in the Wilderness. If he would have made the Earth to open her mouth, and swallow up the City and the power of Rome; if he would have fed a mighty Army with bread from Heaven, in stead of feeding some few thousands with very small Provisions; if in stead of raising one Lazarus D from the Grave, he would have raised up their Sampsons, and their Davids, their men of spirit and conduct, whose very presence would have put a new life, into the hearts of the people; if in stead of casting out Devils, he would have cast out the Romans, whom they hated the worse of the two: if he would have set himself to the cure of a distempered State, instead of healing the maladies of some few inconsiderable persons: if instead of being at the expense of a Miracle to pay tribute, he would have hinder'd them from paying any at all; then a Second Moses would have been too mean a title for him, E he could have been no less than the promised Messias, the Son of God. But while he imploy'd his power another way, the demonstration of it made them hate him the more; since they thought with themselves what strange things they would have [Page] done with it for the benefit of their Country; and therefore A express the greatest malice against him, because he would not imploy it as they would have him. From thence, they condemn his Miracles as only some effects of a Magical skill; and say, he dispossessed the lesser Devils by the power of him that was the Prince among them. So unworthy a requital did they make for all the mighty works which had been done among them; Which, as our Saviour saith, Mat. 11. 21. if they had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes.

3. But although all this argued a strange spirit of contradiction B in them to all the designs for their own good; yet the malice from whence that rose, would not stop here; for as they had long contrived his ruine, so they watched only an opportunity to effect it. Which his frequent presence at Ierusalem seemed to put into their hands, but his reputation with the people made them fearful of embracing it. Therefore they imploy their Agents to deal privately with one of his Disciples who might be fittest for their design; and to work upon his covetous humour by the promise of a reward, to bring him to betray his Master with the greatest privacy into their hands. C This Iudas undertakes, knowing the place and season of his Masters retirements, not far from the City, where they might with the greatest secrecy and safety seize upon his person. Which contrivance of theirs our Saviour was not at all ignorant of; but prepares himself and his Disciples for this great encounter. He institutes his solemn Supper, to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his death and sufferings, after which he discourses admirably with his Disciples, to arm them against their future sufferings; and prays that most divine Prayer, St. Iohn 17. which he had no sooner finished, D but he goes with his Disciples to the usual place of his retirement in a Garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives. And now begins the blackest Scene of sufferings that ever was acted upon humane Nature. Which was so great, that the Son of God himself expresseth a more than usual apprehension of it; which he discovered by the Agony he was in, in which he sweat Luk. 22 44 drops of blood; by the earnestness of his Prayer, falling upon his knees, and praying thrice, saying, Mat 26. 39 O my Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Surely, this Cup must needs E have a great deal of bitterness in it, which the Son of God was so earnest to be freed from. If there had been nothing in it but what is commonly incident to humane Nature, as to the apprehensions of death or pain, it seems strange, that he [Page] who had the greatest innocency, the most perfect charity, the A freest resignation of himself, the fullest assurance of the reward to come, should express a greater sense of the horror of his sufferings, than thousands did, who suffer'd for his sake. But now was the hour come wherein the Son of God was to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of men; wherein he was to bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows, when he was Isa 53 4, 5. to be wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; now Mat. 26. 38. his soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death; for now Luk. 22. 53. the hour of his enemies was come, and the power of darkness. And accordingly they improve it; they B come out against him as a Malefactor, with swords and staves, and having seized his Person, being betray'd into their hands by one of his Disciples, they carry him to the High Priests house, where his professed enemies presently condemn him of Mat. 26. 66, 67. Blasphemy, and not content with this, they express the greatest contempt of him, for they spit in his face, they buffet him, and smite him with the Palms of their hands, they mock him, and bid him prophesie who it was that smote him; so insolent was their malice grown, and so spightful was their indignation against him. And so fearful were they, lest he should C escape their hands, that the very next morning early, they send him bound to the Roman Governour, to have the sentence pronounced against him, to whom they accuse him of Sedition and Treason; but Pilate upon examination of him declares, Luk 23. 4. he found no fault in him; which made them heap more unreasonable calumnies upon him, being resolved by what means soever to take away his life. Nay, the price of the blood of the Son of God was fallen so low with them, that they preferred the life of a known seditious person, and a Murtherer before him. And when Pilate being unsatisfied, asked still, D Mat 27. 23 what evil he had done? they continue their importunity without any other answer but Crucifie him and making up what wanted in Justice and Reason in the loudness of their clamors. And at last seeing the sury and madness of the people, with the protestation of his own innocency as to his blood, he delivers him up to the people; and now he is stripped, and scourged, and mock'd, with a Crown of Thorns, a Scarlet Robe, and a Reed in his hand: all the indignities they could think of, they put upon him. But though it pleased them, to have him exposed to all the ignominies imaginable, yet nothing would satisfie E them but his blood; and therefore he is led forth to be crucified, and though so lately scourged and weakened by his sorrows, yet he is made to carry his own Cross (at least through the City) for no other death could satisfie them, but the [Page] most ignominious, and painful. And when he was brought A to the place of Crucifixion, they nail his hands and feet to the Cross, and while he was hanging there, they deride and mock him still, they devide his garments before his face, give him Gall and Vinegar to drink, and the last act of violence committed upon him, was the piercing of his side, so that out of his Pericardium issued Joh. 19. 34. both water and blood. Thus did the Son of God suffer at the hands of unreasonable men; thus was the blood of that immaculate Lamb split by the hands of violence; and he who left the bosom of his Father, to bring us to glory, was here treated as if he had been unworthy to live B upon the Earth.

2. But that which yet heightens these sufferings of Christ, is to consider, from whom he suffer'd these things, it was from sinners; which is as much as to say, from men, if the word were taken in the largest sense of it; for all have sinned; but being taken by us in opposition to othermen, so it implies a greater height of wickedness in these than in other persons. But this is not here to be consider'd absolutely, as denoting what kind of persons he suffer'd from, but with a particular respect to the nature of their proceedings with him, and the obligations C that lay upon them to the contrary. So that the first shews the injustice and unreasonableness of them; the second, their great ingratitude, considering the kindness and good will which he expressed towards them.

1. The Injustice and unreasonableness of their proceedings against him. It is true indeed, (what Socrates said to his wife, when she complained that he suffer'd unjustly, What, saith he, and would you have me suffer justly?) it is much greater comfort to the person who does suffer, when he does it unjustly but it is a far greater reflection on those who were the causes of D it. And that our Blessed Saviour did suffer with the greatest injustice from these men, is apparent from the falseness and weakness of all the accusations which were brought against him. To accuse the Son of God for Blaphemy, in saying, he was so, is as unjust as to condemn a King for treason, because he saith he is a King: they ought to have examined the grounds on which he call'd himself so; and if he had not given pregnant evidences of it, then to have passed sentence upon him as an Impostor and Blasphemer. If the thing were true, that he was what he said, the Son of God, what horrible guilt was it in E them, to imbrue their hands in his blood? and they found he always attested it, and now was willing to lay down his life to confirm the truth of what he said. This surely ought at least to have made them more inquisitive into what he had affirmed; [Page] but they allow him not the liberty of a fair tryal, they hasten A and precipitate the sentence, that they might do so the execution. If he were condemned as a false Prophet; (for that seems to be the occasion of the Sanhedrim meeting to do it, to whom the cognisance of that did particularly belong) why do they not mention what it was he had foretold, which had not come to pass; or what reason do they give why he had usurped such an Office to himself? If no liberty were allowed under pain of death for any to say, that they were sent from God, how was it possible for the Messias ever to appear, and not be condemned? for the expectation of him was, that he B should be a great person immediately sent from God, for the delivery of his people. And should he be sent from God, and not say that he was so? for how then could men know that he was? So that their way of proceeding with him, discovers it self to be manifestly unjust, and contrary to their own avowed expectations. Neither were they more successful in the accusation of him before Pilate; why did not the witnesses appear to make good the charge of sedition and treason against him? where were the proofs of any thing tending that way? Nay, that which abundantly testified the innocency of our C Saviour, as to all the matters he was accused of, was that the Roman Governour, after a full examination of the cause, declares him innocent, and that not only once but several times; and was fully satisfied in the Vindication he made of himself, so that nothing but the fear of what the Iews threatned, viz. accusing him to Caesar (a thing he had cause enough otherwise to be afraid of) which made him at last yield to their importunity. But there was one circumstance more which did highly discover the innocency of Christ, and the injustice of his sufferings, which was Iuda's confession and end; the man who D had betray'd his Lord, and had receiv'd the wages of his iniquity; but was so unquiet with it, that in the time when his other Disciples durst not own him, he with a great impetus returns to them with his Money, throws it among them with that sad farewel to them all, Mat. 27. 4. I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. What could have been said more for his Vindication at this time than this was, by such a person as Iudas, one who had known our Saviour long, and had been the fittest instrument, if any guilt could have been fasten'd upon him, to have managed the accusation against him; but E the anxiety of his mind was too great for what he had done already, to live to do them any longer service; for either his grief suffocated him, or his guilt made him hang himself; for the words will signifie either. Neither can it be said by any [Page] modern Iews, that all the testimony we have of these things A is from his own Disciples; but that certainly they had some greater matter to accuse him of; which we now have lost. For how is it possible to conceive, that a matter so important as that was, should be lost by those of their own Nation, who were so highly concerned to vindicate themselves in all places, as soon as the Gospel was spread abroad in the World? For the guilt of this blood was every where by the Christians charged upon them; and their prodigious sufferings afterwards were imputed wholly by them to the shedding of that blood of Christ, which by a most solemn imprecation they had said, should B be upon them and their Children. Besides, how comes Celsus, who personates a Iew opposing Christianity, to mention no other accusations against him but those recorded in the Gospel; and Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. p. 123. Origen challenges him or any other person to charge him with any action which might deserve punishment. And which is very observable, Porphyrie, one of the most inveterate enemies of Christianity, and that took as much pains to write against it as any, and had more learning to do it with, yet in his Book of the Philosophy of Oracles, as August. de Civit. Dei, l. 19. c. 23. St. Augustin tells us, quotes an Oracle wherein were these words C concerning Christ, And what became of him after his death? it saith, that his Soul was immortal, Cur ergo damnatus est? responait Dea: corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper oppositum est, anima autem piorum coelasti s [...]ai insidet. Viri pietate praestantissimi est illa anima, and that it was the soul of a most excellent person for piety; and being then asked, why he was condemned? the answer only is, that the body (of the best) is exposed to weakning torments, but the Soul rests in heavenly habitations. So that on no account can this contradiction appear to be otherwise than an act of great injustice and cruelty, and therefore must needs be the contradiction of sinners.

2. This contradiction of theirs to Christ was an act of high D Ingratitude. It was a sharp but very just rebuke which the Iews received from our Saviour, when they were once ready to stone him; Joh. 10. 32. Many good works have I shewed you from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me? The very same might have been applyed to his Judges and accusers; when they were about to crucifie him. For what was his whole Life after he appeared publickly, but a constant design of doing good? His presence had far more vertue for the curing all bodily distempers, than the Pool of Bethesda among the Iews, or the Temples of Aesculapius among the Gentiles. What wonders E were made of very small things done by other persons, as the cure of a blind Man by Vespasian! when such multitudes of far more certain and considerable cures, can hardly keep up the reputation of any thing extraordinary in him. But though his [Page] kindness was great to the bodies of men, where they were fit A objects of pity and compassion; yet it was far greater to their souls, that being more agreeable to the design of his coming into the World; for the other tended to raise such an esteem of him as might make him the more successful in the cure of their Souls. And to shew, that this was his great business, wherever he comes, he discourses about these things, takes every opportunity that might be improved for that end, refuses no company he might do good upon, and converses not with them with the pride and arrogance of either the Pharisees or Philosophers, but with the greatest meekness, humility and B patience. How admirable are his more solemn discourses, especially that upon the Mount, and that wherein he takes leave of his Disciples! How dry and insipid are the most sublime discourses of the Philosophers compared with these! how clearly doth he state our Duties, and what mighty encouragements does he give to practise them! how forcibly does he perswade men to self-denyal and contempt of the world! how excellent and holy are all his Precepts! how serviceable to the best interest of men in this life and that to come! how suitable and desireable to the souls of good men are the rewards he promises! C what exact rule of Righteousness hath he prescribed to men, in doing as they would be done by! with what vehemency doth he rebuke all hypocrisie and Pharisaism! with what tenderness and kindness does he treat those that have any real inclinations to true goodness! with what earnestness does he invite, and with what love doth he embrace all repenting sinners! with what care doth he instruct, with what mildness doth he reprove, with what patience doth he bear with his own disciples! Lastly, with what authority did he both speak and live, such as commanded a reverence, where it did not beget a love! And yet D after a life thus spent, all the requital he met with, was to be reproached, despised, and at last crucified. O the dreadful effects of malice and hypocrisie! for these were the two great enemies which he always proclaimed open war with; and these at first contrived, and at last effected his cruel death. What baseness, ingratitude, cruelty, injustice, (and what not?) will those two sins betray men to, when they have once taken possession of the hearts of men! for we can find nothing else at the bottom of all that wretched conspiracy against our Saviour; but that his doctrine and design was too pure and holy for them; E and therefore they study to take him away who was the author of them.

3. We consider, in what way and manner, our Saviour underwent all these sufferings; and this as much as any thing is [Page] here propounded to our consideration. For it is not only who, A or what, but in what manner he endured the contradiction of sinners, that we ought to consider, to prevent fainting and dejection of mind. So another Apostle tells us, Pet 2. 21. 22, 23. that Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatned not, but committed himself to him that judged righteously. He uses none of those ranting expressions which none of the patientest persons in the world were accustomed to; of bidding them laugh in Phalaris his Bull; and when they were B racked with pains, to cry out, Nil agis dolor: he tells them not, that it is their duty to have no sense of torments, and to be jocund and pleasant when their flesh is torn from them, or nailed to a Cross; if this be any kind of fortitude, it is rather that of a Gladiator than of a wise man or a Christian. The worst of men either through a natural temper of body, or having hardned themselves by custom, have born the greatest torments with the least expression of grief under them. And Panaetius, one of the wisest of the Stoicks, is so far from making insensibleness of pain the property of a wise man, that he makes it not the property C of a man. The inferiour Creatures are call'd Brutes from their dulness and insensibleness, and not meerly from want of reason, any further than that one follows from the other: P [...]i [...]. Nat. Hist. l. 11. 37. bruta existimantur animalium quibus cor durum riget, saith Pliny, those animals are call'd Brutes which have the hardest hearts: and the nearer any of them approach to the nature of man, the more apprehensive they are of danger, and the more sensible of pain; thence Scali [...]. hist. a [...]i [...]. l 2 sect. 133. Scaliger saith of the Elephant, that it is maximabellua, sed non maximè bruta, though it be the greatest beast, it is the least a Brute. Stupidity then D under sufferings can be no part of the excellency of a man; which in its greatest height is in the Beings the most beneath him. But when danger is understood, and pain felt, and Nature groans under it, then with patience and submission to undergo it, and to conquer all the strugglings of Nature against it, that is the duty and excellency of a Christian. If to express the least sense of grief and pain, be the highest excellency of suffering, the Macedonian boy that suffer'd his flesh to be burnt by a Coal, till it grew offensive to all about him, without altering the posture of his arm, lest he should disturb Alexanders E sacrifice, out-did the greatest Philosophers of them all. Possidonius his pitiful rant over a fit of the Gout, so highly commended by Pompey and [...]. l. 2. Tully; O pain, it is to no purpose; though thou beest troublesome, I will never confess thou art evil; [Page] falls extremely short of the resolution of the Macedonian boy, A or any of the Spartan Youths, who would not in the midst of torments so much as confess them troublesome. And what a mighty revenge was that, that he would not confess it to be evil, when his complaint that it was troublesome, was a plain argument that he thought it so. It is not then the example of Zeno or Cleanthes, or the rules of Stoicism, which Dionysius Heracleotes, in a fit of the Stone complained of the solly of, that are to be the measures of patience, and courage in bearing sufferings; but the example and Precepts of our Lord and Saviour, who expressed a great sense of his sufferings, B but withal the greatest submission under them. When Aab. Miraus i [...] [...] i [...]â Lips [...]i p. 60. Lipsius lay a dying, and one of the by-standers knowing how conversant he had been in the Stoicks writings, began to suggest some of their Precepts to him, Vana sunt ista, said he, I find all those but vain things; and beholding the Picture of our Saviour near his bed, he pointed to that, and cryed, haec vera est patientia: there is the true pattern of Patience. For, notwithstanding that Agony he was in immediately before his being betray'd, when he sees the Officers coming towards him, he asks them whom they seek for? and tells them, I am he; which C words so astonished them, Joh. 18. 6. that they went back, and fell upon the ground: thereby letting them understand how easie a matter it was for him to have escaped their hands; and that it was his own free consent, that he went to suffer, for he knew certainly before hand, the utmost that he was to undergo, and therefore it was no unreasonable impetus, but a settled resolution of his mind to endure all the contradictions of sinners. When he was spit upon, mocked, reproached and scourged, none of all these could draw one impatient expression from him. The malice and rage of his enemies did not at all provoke him; unless D it were to pity and pray for them. And that he did, with great earnestness in the midst of all his pains: and though he would not plead for himself to them, yet he pleads for them to God; Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. How much more divine was this, than the admired Theramenes among the Greeks, who being condemned to dye by the thirty Tyrants, when he was drinking off his cup of Poyson, said, he drank that to Critias, one of his most bitter enemies, and hoped he would pledge it shortly. Socrates seemed not to express seriousness enough at least, when he bid one of E his friends, when he was dying, offer up a Cock to Aesculapius for his deliverance. Aristides and Phocion among the Greeks came the nearest to our Saviours temper, when one pray'd, that his Country might have no cause to remember him [Page]when he was gone, and the other charged his Son, to forget A the injuries they had done him; but yet by how much the greater the person and office was of our Blessed Saviour, than of either of them, by how much the cruelty and ignominy, as well as pain was greater which they exposed him to, by how much greater concernment there is to have such an offence pardon'd by one that can punish it with eternal misery, than not revenged by those, who though they may have will, have not always power to execute; so much greater was the kindness of our Saviour to his enemies, in his Prayer upon the Cross, than of either of the other, in their concernment for B that ungrateful City, that had so ill requited their services to it. Thus when the Son of God was oppressed, and afflicted, Isa. 53. 7. he opened not his mouth, but only in Prayer for them, who were his bitter enemies; and though nothing had been more easie than for him to have cleared himself from all their accusations, who had so often baffled them before; yet he would not now give them that suspicion of his innocency, as to make any Apology for himself; but committed himself to God that judges righteously, and was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers was dumb, so he C opened not his mouth. And the reason thereof was, he knew what further design for the good of mankind was carrying on by the bitterness of his passion, and that all the cruel usage he underwent, was that he might be a sacrifice of atonement so the sins of the World. Which leads to the last thing propounded to our consideration.

4. Which is, the causes why God was pleased to suffer his Son to endure such contradiction of sinners against himself. I know it is an easie answer to say, that God had determin'd it should be so, and that we ought to enquire no further: but D sure such an answer can satisfie none who consider, how much our salvation depends upon the knowledge of it, and how clear and express the Scripture is in assigning the causes of the sufferings of Christ. Which though as far as the instruments were concerned in it, we have given an account of already, yet considering the particular management of this grand affair by the care of divine Providence, a higher account must be given of it, why so divine and excellent a person should be exposed to all the contempt and reproach imaginable, and after being made a sacrifice to the tongues and rods of the E people, then to dye a painful and ignominious death? So that allowing but that common care of divine Providence, which all sober Heathens acknowledged, so transcendent sufferings as these were, of so holy and innocent a person, [Page] ought to be accounted for, in a more than ordinary manner; A when they thought themselves concerned to vindicate the Justice of Gods providence in the common calamities of those who are reputed to be better than the generality of Mankind. But the reasons assigned in that common case will not hold here, since this was a person immediately sent from God upon a particular message to the World, and therefore might plead an exemption by vertue of his Ambassage from the common Arrests and troubles of humane nature. But it was so far otherwise, as though God had designed him on purpose to let us see how much misery humane nature can undergo. Some B think themselves to go as far as their reason will permit them; when they tell us, that he suffer'd all these things to confirm the truth of what he had said, and particularly the Promise of Remission of sins, and that he might be an example to others, who should go to Heaven by suffering afterwards, and that he might, being touched with the feeling of our infirmities here, have the greater pity upon us now he is in Heaven. All these I grant to have been true and weighty reasons of the sufferings of Christ, in subordination to greater ends, but if there had been nothing beyond all this, I can neither understand why he should C suffer so deeply as he did, nor why the Scripture should insist upon a far greater reason more than upon any of these? I grant, the death of Christ did confirm the truth of his Doctrine, as far as it is unreasonble to believe that any one who knew his Doctrine to be false, would make himself miserable to make others believe it; but if this had been all intended, why would not an easier and less ignominious death have served? since he who would be willing to die to confirm a falshood, would not be thought to confirm a truth by his death, because it was painful and shameful. Why, if all his sufferings were D designed as a testimony to others, of the truth of what he spake, were the greatest of his sufferings, such as none could know the anguish of them but himself, I mean his Agony in the Garden, and that which made him cry out upon the Cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why were not his Miracles enough to confirm the truth of his Doctrine? since the Law of Moses was received without his death, by the evidence his Miracles gave that he was sent from God; since the Doctrine of remission of sins had been already deliver'd by the Prophets, and received by the People of the Iews; E since those who would not believe for his Miracles sake, neither would they believe though they should have seen him rise from the Grave, and therefore not surely because they saw him put into it. But of all things, the manner of our Saviours [Page] sufferings seems least designed to bring the World to the A belief of his Doctrine, which was the main obstacle to the entertainment of it among the men of greatest reputation for wisdom and knowledge. For it was 1 Cor. 1. 23 Christ crucified, which was to the Iews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. Had the Apostles only preached that the Son of God had appeared from Heaven, and discovered the only way to bring men thither, that he assumed our Nature for a time to render himself capable of conversing with us, and therein had wrought many strange and stupendious miracles, but after he had sufficiently acquainted the World with the nature of B his doctrine, he was again assumed up into Heaven; in all probability, the doctrine might have been so easily received by the world, as might have saved the lives of many thousand persons, who dyed as Martyrs for it. And if it had been necessary that some must have dyed to confirm it, why must the Son of God himself do it? when he had so many Disciples who willingly sacrificed their lives for him, and whose death would on that account have been as great a confirmation of the truth of it as his own. But if it be alledged further, Quod caet [...]a etiam foede [...]a c [...]so a [...]imali ali [...]o s [...] ciri, & sa [...]g [...]i [...] ejus co [...]fir [...] ari solerent. Crell. c. Grot. ad cap. 1. p. 29. that God now entring into a Covenant with man for the pardon of sin, C the shedding of the blood of Christ was necessary as a federal rite to confirm it. I answer, if only as a federal rite, why no cheaper blood would serve to confirm it but that of the Son of God? We never read that any Covenant was confirmed by the death of one of the contracting parties; and we cannot think that God was so prodigal of the blood of his Son, to have it shed only in allusion to some ancient customs. But if there were such a necessity of alluding to them, why might not the blood of any other person have done it? when yet all that custom was no more, but that a sacrifice should be offer'd, and D upon the parts of the sacrifice devided, they did solemnly swear and ratifie their Covenant. V. Hei [...]s. not. ad Sil. p. 9. 10. And if this be yielded them, it then follows from this custom, that Christ must be consider'd as a sacrifice in his death; and so the ratification of the Covenant must be consequent to that oblation which he made of himself upon the Cross. Besides, how incongruous must this needs be, that the death of Christ the most innocent person in the World, without any respect to the guilt of sin, should suffer so much on purpose to assure us, that God will pardon those who are guilty of it? May we not much rather E infer the contrary, considering the holiness and justice of Gods nature; if he dealt so severely with the green tree, how much more will he with the dry? If one so innocent suffer'd so much, what then may the guilty expect? If a Prince should suffer [Page] the best subject he hath, to be severely punished, could ever A any imagine that it was with a design to assure them that he would pardon the most rebellious? No; but would it not rather make men afraid of being too innocent, for fear of suffering too much for it? And those who seem very careful to pre [...]erve the honour of Gods Justice, in not punishing one for anothers faults, ought likewise to maintain it in the punishing of one who had no fault at all to answer for. And to think to escape this by saying, that to such a person such things are calamities, but no punishments, is to revive the ancient exploded Stoicism, which thought to reform the diseases of B Mankind by meer changeing the names of things, though never so contrary to the common sense of humane nature: which judges of the nature of punishments by the evils men undergo, and the ends they are designed for. And by the very same reason that God might exercise his dominion on so innocent a person as our Saviour was, without any respect to sin as the moving cause to it, he might lay eternal torments on a most innocent Creature (for degrees and continuance do not alter the reason of things) and then escape with the same evasion, that this was no act of injustice in God, because it was C a meer exercise of Dominion. And when once a sinner comes to be perswaded by this that God will pardon him, it must be by the hopes that God will shew kindness to the guilty, because he shews so little to the innocent; and if this be agreeable to the Justice and Holiness of Gods nature, it is hard to say what is repugnant to it. If to this it be said, that Christs consent made it no unjust exercise of Dominion in God towards him: it is easily answered, that the same consent will make it less injustice in God to lay the punishment of our sins upon Christ, upon his undertaking to satisfie for as; for then the D consent supposes a meritorious cause of punishment; but in this case the consent implyeth none at all. And we are now enquiring into the reasons of such sufferings, and consequently of such a consent; which cannot be imagined but upon very weighty motives, such as might make it just in him to consent, as well as in God to inflict.

Neither can it be thought that all the design of the sufferings of Christ, was to give us an example and an incouragement to suffer our selves; though it does so in a very great measure, as appears by the Text it self. For the hopes of an eternal reward E for these short and light afflictions, ought to be encouragement enough, to go through the miseries of this life in expectation of a better to come. And the Cloud of Witnesses, both under the Law and the Gospel, of those who have suffer'd [Page] for righteousness sake, ought to make no one think it strange, A if he must endure that, which so many have done before him, and been crowned for it. And lastly, to question whether Christ could have pity enough upon us in our sufferings, unless he had suffer'd so deeply himself; will lead men to distrust the pity and compassion of Almighty God, because he was never capable of suffering, as we do. But the Scripture is very plain and full (to all those who rack not their minds to pervert it) in assigning a higher reason than all these of the sufferings of Christ, viz. That 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust; that Isa. 53. 10. his soul was made an offering for sin, and that the B Lord therefore as on a sacrifice of atonement, V. 6. laid on him the iniquities of us all: that, through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 9. 14. V. 27. he offer'd himself without spot to God, and did appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; that he was made a propitiation for our sins; that, 1 John 2. 2, 4, 10. he laid down his life as a price of Redemption for Mankind; that, 1 Tim 6. 2. through his blood we obtain Redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, which in a more particular manner is attributed 1 Cor. 6. 20. to the blood of Christ, as the procuring cause of it. That he dyed Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. to reconcile God and us together; and that Rom. 3. 24, 25. the Ministery C of Reconciliation, is founded Rom. 5. 10. on Gods making him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him: and that we may not think that all this Reconciliation respects us and not God; he is said 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21. to offer up himself to God; and for this cause to be a Mediator of the New Testament, and Heb. 9. 14, 15. to be a faithful high-Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people: Heb. 2. 17. and every high-Priest, taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God; not appointed by God in things meerly tending to the good of men; which D is rather the Office of a Prophet than a Priest. So that from 5. 1. all these places it may easily appear, that the blood of Christ is to be looked on as a sacrifice of Atonement for the sins of the World. Not as though Christ did suffer the very same which we should have suffer'd, for that was eternal death as the consequent of guilt in the person of the Offender, and then the discharge must have been immediately consequent upon the payment, and no room had been left for the freeness of remission, or for the conditions required on our parts; But that God was pleased to accept of the death of his Son, as a full, E perfect, sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the World; as our Church expresseth it; and in consideration of the sufferings of his Son, is pleased to offer pardon of sin upon sincere repentance, and eternal life upon a [...]y [Page] obedience to his will. Thus much for the things we are to consider A concerning the contradiction of sinners which Christ endured against himself.

Nothing now remains, but the influence that ought to have upon us, lest we be weary and faint in our minds. For which end I shall suggest two things.

1. The vast disproportion between Christs sufferings and ours.

2. The great encouragement we have from his sufferings, to bear our own the better.

1. The vast Disproportion between Christs sufferings and B our own. Our lot is fallen into suffering times; and we are apt enough to complain of it. I will not say it is wholly true of us, what the Moralist saith generally of the complaints of men, Non quia dura sed quia molles patimur; that it is not the hardness of our conditions so much as the softness of our spirits which makes us complain of them. For I must needs say, this City hath smarted by such a series and succession of judgements which few Cities in the world could parallel in so short a time. The Plague hath emptied its houses, and the fire consumed them; the War exhausted our spirits, and it were well if Peace C recovered them. But still these are but the common calamities of humane nature, things that we ought to make account of in the World; and to grow the better by them. And it were happy for this City; if our thankfulness and obedience were but answerable to the mercies we yet enjoy: let us not make our condition worse by our fears; nor our fears greater than they need to be: for no enemy can be so bad as they. Thanks be to God our condition is much better at present than it hath been; let us not make it worse by fearing it may be so. Complaints will never end till the World does; and we may imagine D that will not last much longer; when the City thinks it hath trade enough, and the Country riches enough. But I will not go about to perswade you that your condition is better than it is, for I know it is to no purpose to do so; all men will believe as they feel. But suppose our condition were much worse than it is; yet what were all our sufferings compared with those of our Saviour for us? the sins that make us smart, wounded him much deeper; they pierced his side, which only touch our skin, we have no cause to complain of the bitterness of that Cup which he hath drunk off the dreggs of already. We lament E over the ruins of a City, and are revived with any hopes of seeing it rise out of the dust; but Christ saw the ruins that sin caused in all mankind, he undertook the repairing them, and putting men into a better condition than before: And we may [Page] easily think what a difficult task he had of it; when he came A to restore them who were delighted in their ruins, and thought themselves too good to be mended. It is the comfort of our miseries, (if they be only in this life) that we know they cannot last long; but that is the great aggravation of our Saviours sufferings, that the contradiction of sinners continues against him still. Witness, the Atheism, I cannot so properly call it, as the Antichristianism of this present Age; wherein so many profane persons act over again the part of the Scribes and Pharisees; they slight his Doctrine, despise his Person, disparage his miracles, contemn his Precepts, and undervalue B his Sufferings. Men live as if it were in defiance to his holy Laws; as though they feared not what God can do, so much as to need a Mediator between him and them. If ever men tread under foot the Son of God, it is when they think themselves to be above the need of him; if ever they count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, it is not only when they do not value it as they ought, but when they exercise their profane wits upon it. Blessed Saviour! was it not enough for thee to bear the contradiction of sinners upon Earth; but thou must still suffer so much at the hands of those whom thou dyedst for, that C thou mightest bring them to Heaven? was it not enough for thee to be betrayed on Earth, but thou must be defied in Heaven? Was it not enough for thee to stoop so low for our sakes, but that thou shouldest be trampled on because thou didst it? was the ignominious death upon the Cross too small a thing for thee to suffer in thy Person, unless thy Religion be contemned, and exposed to as much shame and mockery as thy self was? Unhappy we, that live to hear of such things! but much more unhappy if any of our sins have been the occasion of them: If our unsuitable lives to the Gospel have open'd the mouths of D any against so excellent a Religion. If any malice and revenge, any humour and peevishness, any pride or hypocrisie, any sensuality and voluptuousness, any injustice, or too much love of gain, have made others despise that Religion which so many pretend to, and so few practise. If we have been in any measure guilty of this, as we love our Religion, and the honour of our Saviour, let us endeavour by the holiness and meekness of our spirits, the temperance and justice of our actions, the patience and contentedness of our minds, to recover the honour of that Religion which only can make us happy, and our E Posterity after us.

2. What Encouragement we have from the sufferings of Christ, to bear our own the better; because we see by his example that God deals no more hardly with us, than he did with his [Page] own Son, if he laies heavy things upon us. Why should we A think to escape, when his own Son underwent so much? if we meet with reproaches, and ill usage, with hard measure, and a mean condition, with injuries and violence, with mockings and affronts, nay with a shameful and a painful death, what cause have we to complain, for did not the Son of God undergo all these things before us? If any of your Habitations have been consumed, that you have been put to your shifts where to lodge your selves, or your Families; consider, that Mat. 8. 20. though the Foxes have holes, and the Birds of the Air have nests, yet the Son of Man had not whereon to lay his head. If your condition B be mean and low, think of him, Phil. 2. 6, 7. who being in the form of God, took upon him the form of a servant; and 2 Cor. 8. 9. though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that through his poverty ye might be made rich. If you are unjustly defamed and reproached, consider what contumelies and disgraces the Son of God underwent for you. If you are in pain and trouble, think of his Agony and bloody sweat, the nailing of his hands and feet to the Cross, to be a sacrifice for the expiation of your sins. Never think much of undergoing any thing, whereby Rom. 8. 29. you may be conformable to the Image of the Son of God, knowing C this, V. 17. that if ye suffer with him, ye shall also be glorified together. And you have never yet set a true estimate and value upon things, if you V. 18. reckon the sufferings of this present. life worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed. Which Glory ought always to bear up our minds under our greatest afflictions here; and the thoughts of that, will easily bring us to the thoughts of his sufferings, who Heb. 9. 12. by his own blood purchased an eternal redemption for us. Therefore, consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary, and faint in your minds. D

E

SERMON VII. Ser. VII. A B Preached before the KING, JANUARY 30. 1668/9. C

[Page]

JUDE V. II.‘And perished in the gainsaying of Corah.’

AMong all the dismal consequences of that D fatal day wherein the Honour of our Nation suffered together with our Martyr'd Soveraign, there is none which in this Place we ought to be more concerned for, than the Dishonour which was done to Religion by it. For if those things which E were then acted among us, had been done among the most rude and barbarous Nations, though that had been enough to have made them for ever thought so; yet they might have been imputed to their ignorance in matters of [Page] Civility and Religion: but when they were committed not A only by men who were called Christians, but under a pretence of a mighty zeal for their Religion too, men will either think that Religion had, which did give encouragement to such actions, or those persons extremely wicked, who could make use of a pretence of it for things so contrary to its nature and design. And on which of these two the blame will fall, may be soon discovered, when we consider that the Christian Religion, above all others, hath taken care to preserve the Rights of Soveraignty, by Mat 22. 21. giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to make resistance unlawful by declaring B Rom. 132. that those who are guilty of it shall receive to themselves damnation. But as though bare resistance had been too mean and low a thing for them (notwithstanding what Christ and his Apostles had said) to shew themselves to be Christians of a higher rank than others; they imbrue their hands in the blood of their Soveraign for a demonstration of their Piety, by the same figure by which they had destroyed mens Rights to defend their Liberties, and fought against the King for preservation of his Person. But the actions of such men could not have been so bad as they were; unless their pretences C had been so great, for there can be no higher aggravation of a wicked action, than for men to seem to be Religious in the doing of it. If the Devil himself were to preach sedition to the world, he would never appear otherwise than as an Angel of Light: his pretence would be Unity, when he designed the greatest Divisions; and the preservation of Authority, when he laid the seeds of Rebellion. But we might as well imagine that the God of this world (as the Devil is sometime called) should advance nothing but Peace and Holiness in it, as that Christianity should give the least countenance D to what is contrary to either of them. Yet the wickedness of men hath been so great upon earth, as to call down Heaven it self to justifie their impieties, and when they have found themselves unable to bear the burden of them, they would sain make Religion do it.

Such as these we have a description of in this short, but smart Epistle, viz. men who pretended inspirations and impulses for the greatest villanies; who believed it a part of their Saintship to despise Dominions, and speak evil of Dignities; who thought the Grace of God signified very little, unless it served to justifie E their most wicked actions. These in all probability were the followers of Simon Magus the Leviathan of the Primitive Church, [...]. Epiphan. haeres. 27. p. 105. ed. Petav. who destroyed all the natural differences of [Page] good and evil, [...]. Epiph. haer. s. 24 [...]. 5. [...]. 72. and made it lawful for men in case of A persecution, to forswear their Religion. [...]. Theo [...]oret. haeret. sab. l. 1. p. [...]93. The great part of his Doctrine being that his Disciples need not be afraid of the terrours of the Law, for they were free to do what they pleased themselves, because Salvation was not to be expected by good works, but only by the Grace of God: No wonder then, that such as these did turn the Grace of God into lasciviousness: And when it proved dangerous not to do it, would deny their Religion to save themselves. For they had so high opinions of themselves, that they were the only Saints, that as [...]. Epiph. her. 24. sect. 5. Epiphanius tells us, they thought it the casting Pearls before Swine, B to expose themselves to danger before the Heathen Governours; by which they not only discovered what a mighty value they set upon themselves, but what mean and contemptible thoughts they had of that Authority which God had established in the world.

But this they would by no means allow, for they thought C all the Governments of the world to be nothing else Ad [...]atem ergo g [...]ntiu [...]n, t [...]m regnum positum est à [...]o: sed not à Diatolo, qui nunquam omnino [...]i [...]tus est, immo ui acc i [...]sas quid m g [...]te [...] [...] i [...] tra [...]quil [...]o a [...]ere. Iren. advers. haer. l. 5. c 24 but the contrivance of some evil spirits to abridge men of that liberty which God and nature had given them: And this is that speaking evil of Dignities which they are charged with, not only by our Apostle here, but by St. Peter before him. Although the phrase used by 2 Pe [...] 2 10. St. Peter, [...] may be taken (by the use of the word [...] in the first of 1 Mac. 2. 6. Maccabees) not for the bare contempt of Authority, expressed by reviling language, but for an open resistance of it; which the D other is so natural an introduction to, that those who think and speak contemptibly of Government, do but want an occasion to manifest that their actions would he as bad as their thoughts and expressions are. And from hence [...] here in the words of the Text is made use of to express one of the most remarkable seditions we ever read of: viz. that of Corah and his Company against Moses and Aaron; whose punishment for it did not deter these persons who went under the name of Christian, from joyning in seditious practices to the great dishonour of Christianity, and their own ruine. For E therefore the Apostle denounces a Woe against them in the beginning of the verse, and speaks of their ruine as certain as if they had been consumed by fire, or swallowed up by the earth, as Corah and his accomplices were; And they perished in the [Page]gainsaying of Corah. In the verb [...], the Aorist, saith A Grotius, is taken for the future, or present, and so implying that these courses did tend to their misery and ruine, and would unavoidably bring it upon them. If the evidence in history had been clear of the Carpocratians joyning with the Iews in the famous rebellion of Barchochebas, wherein such multitudes of Christians as well as Heathens were destroyed in Africa, Aegypt, and other places, and the time of it had agreed with the time V. David Ca [...]. C [...]ol. p. 101. of writing this Epistle, I should then have thought that this had been the Rebellion here spoken of; for all the Actors in it were destroyed by the Roman Power, and some of the chief B of them made publick examples of Justice for the deterring of others from the like practices. But however this be, we find these persons here charged with a sin of the same nature, with the gainsaying of Core, and a judgement of the same nature, as the consequent of the sin; for they perished in the gainsaying, &c. And therefore we shall consider the words.

1. As relating to the fact of Corah and his company.

2. As implying as great displeasure of God under the Gospel against the same kind of sin, as he discovered in the

C

immediate destruction of those persons who were then guilty of it.

1. As relating to the fact of Corah and his company; and so the words lead us to the handling.

1. The nature of the Faction which was raised by them.

2. The Judgement that was inflicted upon them for it.

1. For understanding the nature of the Faction, we must enquire into the design that was laid, the persons who were engaged in it, the pretences that were made use of for it.

1. The design that was laid for that, and all other circumstances D of the story, we must have resort to the account that is given of it, Numb. 16. Where we shall find that the bottom of the design was the sharing of the Government among themselves, which it was impossible for them to hope for, as long as Moses continued as a King in Iesurun, for so he is called, Deut. 33. 5. Him therefore they intend to lay aside, but this they knew to be a very difficult task, considering what wonders God had wrought by him in their deliverance out of Egypt, what wisdom he had hitherto shewed in the conduct of them, what care for their preservation, what integrity E in the management of his power, what reverence the people did bear towards him, and what solemn vows and promises they had made of obedience to him. But ambitious and factious men are never discouraged by such an appearance of [Page] difficulties; for they know they must address themselves to the people, and in the first place perswade them that they manage A their interest against the usurpation of their Governours. For by that means they gain upon the peoples affections, who are ready to cry them up presently as the true Patriols and defenders of their Liberties against the encroachment of Princes: and when they have thus insinuated themselves into the good opinion of the people; groundless suspicions, and unreasonable fears and jealousies will pass for arguments and demonstrations. Then they who can invent the most popular lies against the Government are accounted the men of integrity, and they B who most diligently spread the most infamous reports, are the men of honesty, because they are farthest from being Flatterers of the Court. The people take a strange pride, as well as pleasure, in hearing and telling all the faults of their Governours; for in doing so they flatter themselves in thinking they deserve to rule much better than those which do it. And the willingness they have to think so of themselves, makes them misconstrue all the actions of their Superiours to the worse sense, and then they find out plots in every thing, upon the people. What ever is done for the necessary maintenance of C Government, is suspected to be a design meerly to exhaust the people to make them more unable to resist. If good Laws be made, these are said by factious men to be only intended for snares for the good people, but others may break them and go unpunished. If Government be strict and severe, then it is cruel and tyrannical, if mild and indulgent, then it is remiss and negligent. If Laws be executed, then the peoples Liberties be oppressed; if not, then it were better not to make Laws, than not to see them executed. If there be Wars, the people are undone by Taxes; if there be Peace, they are undone D by Plenty. If extraordinary Judgements befall them, then they lament the sins of their Governours, and of the Times, and scarce think of their own. If miscarriages happen (as it is impossible always to prevent them) they charge the form of Government with them, which all sorts are subject to. Nay, it is seldom that Governours escape with their own faults, the peoples are often laid upon them too. So here, Numb. 16. 14. Moses is charged with not carrying them into Canaan, when it was their own sins which kept them thence. Yea, so partial have the people generally been against their E Rulers, when swayed by the power of Faction, that this hath made Government very difficult and unpleasing; for what ever the actions of Princes are, they are liable to the censures of the people. Their bad actions being more publick, [Page] and their good therefore suspected of design; and the A wiser Governours are, the more jealous the people are of them. For alwaies the weakest part of mankind are the most suspicious; the less they understand things, the more designs they imagine are laid for them, and the best counsels are the soonest rejected by them. So that the wisest Government can never be secure from the jealousies of the people, and they that will raise a faction against it will never want a party to side with them. For when could we ever have imagined a Government more likely to be free from this, than that which Moses had over the people of Israel? He being an extraordinary person B for all the abilities of Government; one bred up in the Egyptian Court, and in no mean degree of honour, being called the the Son of Pharaohs Daughter, one of great experience in the management of affairs, of great zeal for the good of his Country, as appeared by the tenderness of his peoples interest in their deliverance out of Egypt; one of great temper and meekness ☜ above all men of the earth; one who took all imaginable care for the good establishment of Laws among them; but above all these one particularly chosen by God for this end, and therefore furnished with all the requisites of a good man, C and an excellent Prince: yet for all these things a dangerous sedition is here raised against him, and that upon the common grounds of such things, viz. usurpation upon the peoples rights, arbitrary Government, and ill management of affairs; Usurpation upon the peoples rights, v. 4. the Faction makes a Remonstrance asserting the priviledges of the people against Moses and Aaron, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the Congregation are holy every one of them, and the Lord is among them; Wherefore then lift you up your selves above the Congregation of the Lord: As though they had said, we appear D only in behalf of the Fundamental Liberties of the people both Civil and Spiritual; we only seek to retrench the exorbitances of power, and some late innovations which have been among us; if you are content to lay aside your power which is so dangerous and offensive to Gods holy people, we shall then sit down in quietness; for alas it is not for our selves that we seek these things (what are we?) but the cause of Gods people is dearer to us than our lives, and we shall willingly sacrifice them in so good a Cause. And when Moses afterwards sends for the Sons of Eliah to come to him, they peremptorily E refuse all Messages of Peace, and with their V. 12, 13 men of the sword mentioned, v. 2. They make votes of non-Addresses, and break off all Treaties with him, and declare these for their reasons, that he did dominando dominari, as some render it, [Page] exercise an arbritary and tyrannical power over the people, A that he was guilty of breach of the trust committed to him, for he promised V. 14. to bring them into a Land flowing with Milk and Honey, or give them inheritance of fields and vineyards, but he had not done it, and instead of that only, deceives the people still with fair promises, and so puts out their eyes that they cannot see into the depth of his designs. So that now by the ill management of his Trust, the power was again devolved into the hands of the people, and they ought to take account of his actions. By which we see the design was under very fair and popular pretences to devest Moses B of his Government, and then they doubted not but such zealous Patriots as they had shewed themselves, should come to have the greatest share in it; but this which they most aimed at, must appear least in view, and only Necessity and Providence must seem to cast that upon them, which was the first true motive they had to rebel against Moses and Aaron.

2. The Persons who were engaged in it. At first they were only some discontented Levites who murmured against Moses and Aaron, because they were not preferred to the C Priesthood, and of these Corah was the chief. R. Solomo [...] observes, that the reason of Corahs discontent, was, that Elizaphan the Son of Uzziel, of the younger house to Izhar from whom Corah descended, was preferred before him by Moses to be Prince over the Sons of Numb. 3. 30. Kohath. Corah being active and busie in his discontents, had the opportunity of drawing in some of the Sons of Reuben, for they pitched their tents near each other, Num 2. 10. 3. 29. both on the South side of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; and these were discontented on the account of their Tribe having lost the priviledge of Promogeniture. Thus what D ever the pretences are, how fair and popular soever in the opposition men make to Authority, ambition and private discontents are the true beginners of them: but these must be covered over with the deepest dissimulation, with most vehement Protestations to the contrary, nothing must be talked of but a mighty zeal for Religion, and the publick Interest. So Ioseph. a [...] ti [...]. I [...]d. l. 4. [...]. 2. Iosephus tells us concerning Corah, that while he carried on his own ambitious designs, with all the arts of sedition and a popular eloquence, insinuating into the peoples minds strange suggestions against Moses his Government, as being a meer politick E design of his to enslave the people of God, and advance his own family and interest, [...], he would seem to regard nothing but the publick good. If fair pretences, and glorious titles will serve to cheat the people into [Page] their own miseries, and the sad effects of Rebellion; they A shall never want those who will enslave them for the sake of Liberty, undo them for the publick good, and destroy them with designs of Reformation. For nothing is more popular than Rebellion in the beginning; nothing less in the issue of it. And the only true reason that it is ever so, is from the want of wisdom and judgement in the generality of mankind, who seldom see to the end of things, and hardly distinguish between the names and nature of them, till their own dear bought experience hath taught them the difference. Sedition is of the nature, and hath the inseparable properties of Sin; for it is B conceived with pleasure, brought forth with pain, and ends in death and misery. Nothing enters upon the stage with a braver shew and appearance, but however prosperous for a time it may continue, it commonly meets with a fatal end. But it is with this sin as to this world, as it is with others as to the next; men when they are betrayed into them, are carried away and transported with the pleasing temptations, not considering the unspeakable misery that follows after them. So that what the Devils advantage is in order to the ruine of mens souls, is the advantage of seditious persons over the less understanding C people; they both tempt with an appearance of good, and equally deceive them which hearken to them. But as we still find, that notwithstanding all the grave admonitions, the sober counsels, the rational discourses, the perswasive arguments which are used to deter men from the practice of sin, they will still be such Fools to yield to the Devils temptations against their own welfare: So, neither the blessings of a continued Peace, nor the miseries of an intestine War, neither the securitie of a settled Government, nor the constant danger of Innovations will hinder men of fiery and restless spirits from D raising combustions in a Nation, though themselves perish in the Flames of them. This we find here was the case of Corah and his company; they had forgotten the groans of their captivity in Egypt, and the miracles of their deliverance out of it, and all the faithful services of Moses, and Aaron; they considered not the difficulties of Government, nor the impossibility of satisfying the ambitious desires of all pretenders; they regarded not that God from whom their power was derived, nor the account they must give to him for their resistance of it: nothing but a full Revenge upon the Government can satisfie E them, by leaving no means unattempted for its overthrow, though themselves be consumed by the fall of it. It were happy for Government if these turbulent spirits could be singled out from the rest in their first attempts; but that is the usual [Page] subtilty of such men, when they find themselves aimed at, they A run into the common herd, and perswade the people that they are equally concerned with themselves in the present danger, that though the pretence be only against faction and sedition, the design is the slavery and oppression of the People. This they manage at first by grave nods, and secret whispers, by deep sighs, and extatick motions, by far fetched discourses, and Tragical stories, till they find the people capable of receiving their impressions, and then seem most unwilling to mention that which it was at first their design to discover. By such arts as these Corah had prepared, as Ios [...]h a [...] ti [...]. l. 4. c. 2. Iosephus tells B us, almost the whole Camp of Israel for a popular tumult, so that they were like to have stoned Moses before he was aware of it; and it seems the Faction had gained a mighty interest among the people, when although God so severely and remarkably punished the heads of it, yet the very next day all the Congregation of the Children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, Numb. 16. 41. Te have killed the people of the Lord. What a mark of Gods people was sedition grown among them! When these men were accounted Saints in spight of Heaven, and Martyrs, though God himself destroyed them. They C were men who were only sanctified by Rebellion: and shewed no other fruits of their piety but disobedience to Authority. But the danger had not been so great, how loud soever the complaints had been, if only the ruder multitude had been gained to the Favour of Corah and his party: for these wanted heads to manage them, and some Countenance of Authority to appear under; and for this purpose they had drawn to their Faction 250 Princes of the Assembly, V. 2. famous in the Congregation, men of Renown, i. e. Members of the great Council of the Nation. Whom Moses was wont to call and D advise with about the publick Affairs of it; such who sate in Comitiis Senatorum, as Paul. Fagius tells us, therefore said to be [...] such as were called to the great Assembly which sate in Numb. 10. 2. Parliament at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, which was the place where they met together. These were the Heads of the Tribes, and the Captains of thousands, and the men of the greatest Fame and Authority among the People whom Moses assembled together for advice and counsel, as often as he saw just occasion for it. And as far as I can find were distinct from the great Sanhedrin, E which seemed to be rather a constant Court of Iudicature which sate to receive Appeals from Inferiour Courts, and to determine such difficult causes which were reserved peculiarly for it, as about Apostasy of a whole Tribe, the case of false Prophets, [Page] and the like. But these 250 men did far exceed the whole A number of the Sanhedrin; and the Heads of the Tribes, and the Elders of Israel were summoned together upon any very weighty occasion, by Moses both before and after the institution of the Sanhedrin. And now since the Faction had gained so great strength by the accession of so great a number of the most leading men among the People, we may expect they should soon declare their intentions, and publish the grounds of their entring into such a combination against Moses.

3. Which is the next thing to be spoken to, viz. the colours and pretences under which these persons sought to justifie the B proceedings of the Faction. Which were these two,

1. The asserting the Rights and Liberties of the people in opposition to the Government of Moses.

2. The freeing themselves from the encroachments upon their spiritual Priviledges, which were made by the Usurpations of Aaron and the Priesthood.

1. The asserting the Rights and Liberties of the people in opposition to the Government of Moses. Numb 6. 13. Is it a small thing, say they, that thou hast brought us up out of a Land that floweth with Milk and Honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except C thou make thy self altogether a Prince over us? And before, their charge was, V. 3. that Moses and Aaron took too much upon them, in lifting up themselves above the Congregation of the Lord. Which Ioseph. l. 4. 1, 2. Iosephus more at large explains, telling us that the great accusation of Moses was, that out of his ambition and affectation of Power, he had taken upon himself the Government of the people without their consent, that he made use of his pretence of Familiarity with God only for a Politick end, that by this means he debarred the people of that Liberty which God had given them, and no man ought to D take from them, that they were all a [...]. Ioseph [...] A [...]. l. 4. c. 2. p. 104. Free-born people, and equally the Children of Abraham, and therefore there was no reason they should depend upon the will of a single Person, who by his Politick Arts had brought them to the greatest necessities, that he might rule them the better; Wherefore Corah, as though he had been already President of a High-Court of Iustice upon Moses their King, determines, that it was necessary for the Common-wealth, that such enemies to the Publick Interest should be discovered and punished; lest if they be let alone in their Usurpations of Power, they declare themselves E open enemies when it will be too late to oppose them. There were then two great Principles among them by which they thought to defend themselves.

1. That Liberty and a right to Power is so inherent in the

A

People, that it cannot be taken from them.

2. That in case of Usurpation upon that Liberty of the people, they may resume the exercise of Power, by punishing those who are guilty of it.

1. That Liberty, and a right to Power, is inseparable from the people; libertatis patrocinium suscipiunt, saith Calvin, upon Corah and his company; and I believe they will be found to be the first assertors of this kind of Liberty that ever were in the world. And happy had it been for us in this Nation, if Corah had never found any Disciples in it. For what B a blessed Liberty was this which Corah aimed at, viz. to change one excellent Prince, as Moses was, for 250 Tyrants, besides Corah and the Sons of Reuben? What just and equal liberty was it which Moses did deprive them of? It was only the Liberty of destroying themselves, which all the power he he had could hardly keep them from. Could there be any greater Liberty than delivering them out of the house of bondage? and was not Moses the great Instrument in effecting it? Could there be greater Liberty than for their whole Nation to be preserved from all the designs of their enemies, to enjoy C their own Laws, and matters of Iustice to be duly administred among them? and had they not all these under the Governof Moses? What means then this out-cry for Liberty? Is it that they would have had no Government at all among them, but that every one might have done what he pleased himself? This indeed were a desireable Liberty, if a man could have it alone: but when every one thinks that he is but one, though he be free; and every one else is as free as he, but though their freedom be equal to his, his Power is not equal to theirs; and therefore to bring things to a more just proportion, every D one must part with some power for a great deal of security. If any man can imagine himself in such a state of confusion, which some improperly call a state of nature; let him consider, whether the contentment he could take in his own liberty and power to defend himself, would ballance the fears he would have of the injury which others in the same state might be able to do him. Not that I think meer fear made men at first enter into Societies, for there is a natural inclination in mankind to it, and one of the greatest pleasures of humane life lies in the enjoyment of it. But what other considerations E incline men to, fear makes reasonable, though men part with some supposed liberty for the enjoyment of it. So that the utmost liberty is destroyed by the very nature of Government, and nothing can be more unreasonable than for men to quarrel [Page] with Government for that, which they cannot enjoy and the A preservation of themselves together. Which alone makes the desire of Power reasonable, and if the preservation of our selves in our rights and properties may be had without it, all that the want of Liberty signifies, is, that men have all the conveniences of Power without the trouble and the cares of it. And if this be not a more desirable Liberty than the other, let any rational man judge. The pretence of Liberty then in this sense against Government, is, that men are Fools in taking the best care to preserve themselves, that Laws are but instruments of Slavery, and every single man is better able to defend himself, B than the united strength of a people in Society is to defend him. And this kind of Liberty we may justly think will be desired by none but mad-men, and beasts of prey. It follows then, that what Liberty is inconsistent with all Government, must never be pleaded against any one sort of it. But is there then so great a degree of Liberty in one mode of Government more than another, that it should be thought reasonable to disturb Government, meerly to alter the form of it? Would it have been so much better for the people of Israel to have been governed by the 250 men here mentioned, than by Moses? C Would not they have required the same subjection and obedience to themselves, though their commands had been much more unreasonable than his? What security can there be that every one of these shall not be worse in all respects than him whom they were so willing to lay aside; and if one be thought troublesome, what Liberty and ease is there when their name is Legion? So that the folly of these popular pretences is as great as the sin in being perswaded by them.

And it may be they have not thought amiss who have attributed a great part of that disturbance of the Peace of Kingdoms, D under a pretence of popular Government, to an unjust admiration of those Greek and Roman Writers, who have unreasonably set up Liberty in opposition to Monarchy. But some of the wisest of them have given us a truer account of these things, and have told us, that it was impossible the Roman State could have been preserved longer, unless it had submitted to an Dio. Rom. hist. l. 54. Imperial Power; for the popular heats and factions were so great, that the annual election of Magistrates, was but another name for a tumult; and as Dio goes on L. 44. init. the name of popular Government is far more plausible, but the E benefits of Monarchy are far greater; it being much easier to find one good than many; and though one be accounted difficult, the other is almost impossible. And as he elsewhere well observes, the flourishing of a Common-wealth depends upon its [Page]poverty; that being alone able to unite the minds of the Governours, who in a plentiful state, not set about with enemies, A will be grasping at their own private interests, and fall naturally from thence into divisions and animosities; but the flourishing of the Monarchy lies in the riches of it, the Prince and the People having the same interest, and being rich or poor together. So that we see the notion of Liberty, and exercise of power in Government, is so far from being an inseparable property of the people, that the proper notion of it is inconsistent with Government and that which lies in the enjoyments of our Rights and Properties, is so far from being inconsistent with B Monarchy, that they are more advanced by that, than by any other way of Government.

2. Another principle which tends to the subverting Government under a pretence of Liberty, is, that in case of Usurpation upon the Rights of the People, they may resume the exercise of Power, and punish the Supreme Magistrate himself, if he be guilty of it. Than which there can be no principle imagined more destructive to civil Societies, and repugnant to the very nature of Government. For it destroys all the obligations of Oaths and Compacts; it makes the solemnest C bonds of obedience signifie nothing when the pleople shall think fit to declare it: it makes every prosperous Rebellion just; for no doubt when the power is in the Rebels hands, they will justifie themselves, and condemn their Soveraign. (And if Corah, Dathan and Abiram had succeeded in their Rebellion against Moses, no doubt they would have been called the Keepers of the Liberties of Israel.) It makes all Government dangerous to the persons in whom it is, considering the unavoidable infirmities, of it, and the readiness of people to misconstrue the actions of their Princes, and their incapacity D to judge of them; it not being fit that the reasons of all counsels of Princes should be divulged by Proclamations. So that there can be nothing wanting to make Princes miserable, but that the people want Power to make them so. And the supposition of this principle will unavoidably keep up a constant jealousie between the Prince and his people: for if he knows their minds, he will think it reasonable to secure himself by all means against their Power, and endeavour to keep them as unable to resist as may be: whereby all mutual confidence between a Prince and his People will be destroyed: and E there can be no such way to bring in an arbitrary Government into a Nation, as that which such men pretend, to be the only means to keep it out. Besides, this must necessarily engage a Nation in endless disputes about the forfeiture of Power into [Page] whose hands it falls: whether into the people in common, or A some persons particularly chosen by the people for that purpose: for in an established Government according to their principles, the King himself is the true representative of the people; others may be chosen for some particular purposes, as proposing Laws, &c. but these cannot pretend by vertue of that choice, to have the full power of the people; and withal, whatever they do against the consent of the people is unlawful; and their power is forfeited by attempting it.

But on the other side, what mighty danger can there be in supposing the persons of Princes to be so sacred, that no sons B of violence ought to come near to hurt them? Have not all the ancient Kingdoms and Empires of the world flourished under the supposition of an unaccountable power in Princes? That hath been thought by those who did not own a derivation of their power from God, but a just security to their persons, considering the hazards, and the care of Government which they undergo? Have not the people who have been most jealous of their Liberties, been fain to have recour'e to an unaccountable power, as their last refuge in case of their greatest necessities? I mean the Romans in their Dictators. And if it were C thought not only reasonable, but necessary then, ought it not to be preserved inviolable, where the same Laws do give it by which men have any right to challenge any power at all? Neither doth this give Princes the liberty to do what they list; for the Laws by which they Govern, do fence in the rights and properties of men; and Princes do find so great conveniency ease and security in their Government by Law, that the sense of that will keep them far better within the compass of Laws, than the Peoples holding a Rod over them, which the best Princes are like to suffer the most by, and bad will but grow desperate by D it. Good Princes will never need such a curb, because their oaths and promises, their love and tenderness towards their people, the sense they have of a Power infinitely greater than theirs, to which they must give an account of all their actions, will make them govern as the Fathers of their Country; and bad Princes will never value it, but will endeavour by all possible means to secure themselves against it. So that no inconveniency can be possibly so great on the supposition of this unaccountable Power in Soveraign Princes, taking it in the general, and meerly on the account of reason, as the unavoidable E mischiefs of that Hypothests, which places all power originally in the people, and notwithstanding all oaths and bonds whatsoever to obedience gives them the liberty to resume it when they please: which will always be when that Spirit of [Page] Faction and Sedition shall prevail among them, which ruled A here in Corah and his company.

2. Another pretence for this Rebellion of Corah, was, the freeing themselves from the encroachments upon their spiritual priviledges which were made by the usurpations of Aaron and the Priesthood. This served for a very popular pretence, for they knew no reason that one Tribe should engross so much of the wealth of the Nation to themselves, and have nothing to do but to attend the service of God for it. What, say they, are not all the Lords people holy? Why may not then all they offer up incense to the Lord, as well as the Sons of Aaron? B How many publick uses might those Revenues serve for, which are now to maintain Aaron, and all the sons of Levi? But if there must be some to attend the service of God, why may not the meanest of the people serve for that purpose, those who can be serviceable for nothing else? Why must there be an order of Priesthood distinct from that of Levites? why a High-Priest above all the Priests? what is there in all their office which one of the common people may not do as well as they? cannot they slay the sacrifices, and offer incense, and do all other parts of the Priestly office? So that at last they make all C this to be a Politick design of Moses only to advance his own Family by making his Brother High-Priest, and to have all the Priests and Levites at his devotion, to keep the people the better in awe. This hath always been the quarrel at Religion, by those who seldom pretend to it, but with a design to destroy it. For who would ever have minded the constant attendance at the Temple, if no encouragements had been given to those who were imployed in it? Or is not Religion apt enough to be despised of it self, by men of prophane minds, unless it be rendred more mean and contemptible by the Poverty of those D who are devoted to it? Shall not God be allowed the priviledge of every Master of a Family, to appoint the ranks and orders of his own servants, and to take care they be provided for, as becomes those who wait upon him? What a dishonour had this been to the true God, when those who worshipped false Gods thought nothing too great for those who were imployed in the service of them? But never any yet cryed, but he that had a mind to betray his Master, to what purpose is all this waste? Let God be honoured as he ought to be, let Religion come in for its share among all the things which deserve encouragement, E and those who are imployed in the offices of it, enjoy but what God, and Reason, and the Laws of their Country give them, and then we shall see it was nothing, but the discontent and faction of Corah and his company which [Page] made any encroachment of Aaron and the Priesthood any pretence A for Rebellion.

But all these pretences would not serve to make them escape the severe hand of divine justice; for in an extraordinary and remarkable manner he made them suffer the just desert of their sin, for they perished in their contradiction, which is the next thing to be considered, viz.

2. The Iudgement which was inflicted upon them for it. They had provoked Heaven by their sin, and disturbed the earth by their Faction; and the earth, as if it were moved with indignation against them, trembled and shook, as Iosephus B saith, like waves that are tossed with a mighty wind, and then with a horrid noise it rends asunder, and opens its mouth to swallow those in its bowels who were unfit to live upon the face of it. They had been dividing the people, and the earth to their amazement and ruine divides it self under their feet, as though it had been designed on purpose, that in their punishment themselves might feel, and others see the mischief of their sin. Their seditious principles seemed to have infected the ground they stood upon; the earth of a sudden proves as unquiet and troublesome as they; but to rebuke their madness, it was C only in obedience to him who made it the executioner of his wrath against them; and when it had done its office, it is said, Numb. 16. 33. that the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the Congregation. Thus the earth having revenged it self against the disturbers of its peace, Heaven presently appears with a flaming fire, taking vengeance upon the 250. men, who in opposition to V. 35. Aaron, had usurped the Priestl office, in offering incense before the Lord. Such a Fire, if we believe the same Historian, which far outwent the most dreadful eruptions of Aetna or Vesuvius, which neither the art of D man, nor the power of the wind could raise, which neither the burning of Woods nor Cities could parallel; but such a Fire which the wrath of God alone could kindle, whose light could be outdone by nothing but the heat of it. Thus Heaven and Earth agree in the punishment of such disturbers of Government, and God by this remarkable judgement upon them hath left it upon record to all ages, that all the world may be convinced how displeasing to him the sin of faction and sedition is. For God takes all this that was done against Moses and Aaron, as done against himself. For they are said to be gathered E together against the Lord, v. 11. to provoke the Lord, v. 30. And the fire is said to come out from the Lord: v. 35. And afterwards it is said of them; Namb. 16. 9. This is that Dathan and Abiram, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the [Page]company of Corah, when they strove against the Lord. By A which we see God interprets striving against the Authority appointed by him, to be a striving against himself. God looks upon himself as immediately concerned in the Government of the world; for by him Princes raign, and they are his Vicegerents upon earth; and they who resist, resist not a meer appointment of the people, but Rom. 13. 1, 2. an Ordinance of God; and they who do so shall in the mildest sense receive a severe punishment from him. Let the pretences be never so popular, the persons never so great and famous; nay, though they were of the great Council of the Nation, yet we see God doth not B abate of his severity upon any of these considerations.

This was the first formed sedition that we read of against Moses, the people had been murmuring before, but they wanted heads to manage them: Now all things concur to a most dangerous Rebellion upon the most popular pretences of Religion and Liberty; and now God takes the first opportunity of declaring his hatred of such actions; that others might hear, and fear, and do no more so presumptuously. This hath been the usual method of divine Judgements; the first of the kind hath been most remarkably punished in this life, that C by it they may see how hateful such things are to God; but if men will venture upon them notwithstanding, God doth not always punish them so much in this world, (though he sometimes doth) but reserves them, without repentance, to his Justice in the world to come. The first man that sinned was made an example of Gods Justice; The first world; the first publick attempt against Heaven at Babel after the plantation of the world again; the first Cities which were so generally corrupted after the flood; the first breaker of the Sabbath after the Law; the first offerers with strange fire; the first lookers into the D Ark, and here the first popular Rebellion and Usurpers of the office of Priesthood. God doth hereby intend to preserve the honour of his Laws; he gives men warning enough by one examplary punishment, and if notwithstanding that, they will commit the same sin, they may thank themselves if they suffer for it, if not in this life, yet in that to come. And that good effect this Judgement had upon that people, that although the next day 14000. suffered for murmuring at the destruction of these men, yet we do not find that any Rebellion was raised among them afterwards upon these popular pretences of Religion, E and the Power of the People. While their Judges continued (who were Kings, without the state and title of Kings) they were observed with reverence, and obeyed with diligence. When afterwards they desired a King, with all the Pomp and [Page] Grandeur which other Nations had (which Samuel acquaints A them with, viz. 1 Sam. 8. 11. the officers and Souldiers, the large Revenues he must have) though their King was disowned by God, yet the people held firm in their obedience to him, and David himself, though anointed to be King, persecuted by Saul, and though he might have pleaded Necessity and Providence as much any ever could, (when Saul was strangely delivered into his hands,) yet we see what an opinion he had of the person of a bad King, 1 Sam. 24. 6. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing against my Master the Lords Anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord. And lest we should think B it was only his Modesty or his Policy which kept him from doing it, he afterwards, upon a like occasion declares, it was only the sin of doing it, which kept him from it. 1 Sam. 26. 9. For who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless? Not as though David could not do it without the power of the Sanhedrin, as it hath been pretended by the Sons of Corah in our age; for he excepts none; he never seizes upon him to carry him prisoner to be tryed by the Sanhedrin, nor is there any foundation for any such power in the Sanhedrin over the persons of their Soveraigns. It neither being contained in the C grounds of its institution, nor any precedent occurring in the whole story of the Bible, which gives the least countenance to it: Nay, several passages of Scripture utterly overthrow it, for how could Solomon have said, Eccles. 8. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what dost thou? If by the constitution of their Government, the Sanhedrin might have controlled him in what he said or did. But have not several of the modern Iews said so? Granting that some have; yet so they have spoken many unreasonable and foolish things besides; but yet none of these have said, that it was in D the power of the Sanhedrin to depose their Kings, or put them to death; all that they say is, that in the cases expressed by the Law, if the Kings do transgress, the Sanhedrin had the power of inflicting the penalty of scourging, which yet they deny to have had any infamy in it among them. But did not David transgress the Law in his murder and adultery? did not Solomon in the multitude of his wives and Idolatry, yet where do we read that the Sanhedrin ever took cognisance of these things? And the more ancient Iews do say, Tit. Sanbed c. 2. that the King was not to be judged, as is plain in the Text of the Misna, however E the Expositors have taken a liberty to contradict it; but as far as we can find, without any foundation of reason: and R. Ieremiah in Nachman. in Deut. p. 196. Nachmanides, saith expresly, That no creature may judge the King, but the holy and blessed God alone. But [Page] we have an Authority far greater than his, viz. of Davids in A this case, who after he hath denied that any man can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed, and be guiltless: In the very next words he submits the judgement of him only to God himself, saying, 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battel and perish. He thought it sufficient to leave the judgement of those things to God, whose power over Princes he knew was enough, if well considered by them, to keep them in awe. We have now dispatched the first, consideration of the words of the Text, as they relate to the fact of Corah and his company. B

2. We ought now to enquire, whether the Christian Doctrine hath made any alteration in these things; or whether that gives any greater encouragement to faction and sedition than the Law did, when it is masked under a pretence of zeal for Religion and Liberty. But it is so far from it, that what God then declared to be displeasing to him by such remarkable judgements, hath been now more fully manifested by frequent precepts, and vehement exhortations, by the most weighty arguments, and the constant practice of the first and the best of Christians, and by the black character which is set upon those C who under a pretence of Christian Liberty did despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, and follow Corah in his Rebellion, however they may please themselves with greater light, than former ages had in this matter, they are said to be such Jude v. 13 for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. It would take up too much time to examine the frivolous evasions, and ridiculous distinctions by which they would make the case of the Primitive Christians in not resisting Authority, so much different from theirs who have not only done it, but in spight of Christianity have pleaded for it. Either they said they D wanted strength, or courage, or the countenance of the Senate, or did not understand their own Liberty; when all their obedience was only due to those precepts of the Gospel, which make it so great a part of Christianity to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and which the Teachers of the Gospel had particularly given them in charge Tit. 3. 1. to put the people in mind of.

And happy had it been for us if this Doctrine had been more sincerely preached, and duly practised in this Nation; for we should then never have seen those sad times, which we can now no otherwise think of, than of the devouring Fire, and raging E Pestilence, i. e. of such dreadful judgements which we have smarted so much by, that we heartily pray we may never feel them again: For then fears and jealousies began our miseries, and the curse so often denounced against Meroz, fell upon the [Page] whole Nation; When the Sons of Corah managed their own A ambitious designs against Moses and Aaron (the King and the Church) under the same pretences of Religion and Liberty. And when the pretence of Religion was broken into Schisms, and Liberty into oppression of the people, it pleased God out of his secret and unsearchable judgements to suffer the Sons of Violence to prevail against the Lords Anointed; and then they would know no difference between his being conquered and guilty. They could find no way to justifie their former wickedness, but by adding more: The consciousness of their own guilt, and the fears of the punishment due to it, made them unquiet B and thoughtful, as long as his life and presence did upbraid them with the one, and made them fearful of the other. And when they found the greatness and constancy of his mind, the firmness of his Piety, the zeal he had for the true interest of the people, would not suffer him to betray his Trust for the saving of his life; they charge him with their own guilt, and make him suffer because they had deserved to do it. And as if it had not been enough to have abused the names of Religion and Liberty before, they resolve to make the very name of Iustice to suffer together with their King: by calling that infamous company C who condemned their Soveraign, A High Court of Iustice which trampled under foot the Laws both of God and men. But lest the world should imagine they had any shame left in their sins, they make the people witnesses of his Murther; and pretend the Power of the People for doing that, which they did detest and abhor. Thus fell our Royal Martyr a sacrifice to the fury of unreasonable men; who either were so blind as not to see his worth, or rather so bad as to hate him for it. And as God gave once to the people of the Iews a King in his Anger, being provoked to it by their sins, we have cause to say, that upon the D same account he took away one of the best of Kings from us in his wrath. But blessed be that God, who in the midst of judgement was pleased to remember mercy, in the miraculous preservation, and glorious restauration of our Gratious Soveraign; let us have a care then of abusing the mercies of so great a deliverance to quite other ends than God intended it for; lest he be provoked to say to us, as he did of old to the Iews, 1 Sam. 12. 25. But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your King. And if we look on this as a dreadful judgement, let us endeavour to prevent it by a timely and sincere reformation of our lives, and E by our hearty supplications to God that he would preserve the person of our Soveraign from all the attempts of violence, that he would so direct his counsels, and prosper his affairs, that His Government may be a long and publick Blessing to these Nations.

SERMON VIII. Ser. VIII. A B Preached at GUILD-HALL Chappel. JUNE 9. 1671. C

[Page]

[Page]

MATTHEW XXI. XLIII.

Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. D

THE time was now very near approaching, wherein the Son of God was to suffer an accursed death by the hands of ungrateful men: and to let them see that he laid no impossible command upon men when he bid them Matth. 5. 44. E love their enemies, he expresses the truest kindness himself towards those who designed his destruction. For what can be imagined greater towards such, whose malice was like to end in nothing short of their own ruine, than [Page] by representing to them the evils they must suffer, to disswade A them from that, which they intended to do? But if neither the sense of their future miseries, nor their present sins will at all abate their fury or asswage their malice, nothing is then left for kindness to shew it self by, but by lamenting their folly, bemoaning their obstinacy, and praying God to have pity upon them, who have so little upon themselves. And all these were very remarkable in the carriage of our Blessed Saviour towards his most implacable enemies: he had taken care to instruct them by his doctrine; to convince them by his miracles, to oblige them by the first offers of the greatest mercy; but all these B things had no other effect upon them, than to heighten their malice, increase their rage, and make them more impatient till they had destroyed him. But their stupidity made him more sensible of their folly, and their obstinacy stirred up his compassion towards them, in so much that the nearer he approached to his own sufferings, the greater sense he expressed of theirs. For he was no sooner come within view of that bloody City, wherein he was within few days to suffer by, as well as for the sins of men; but his compassion breaks forth, not only by his weeping over it; but by that passionate expression, which is C abrupt only by the force of his grief: Luke 19. 41, 42. If thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are bid from thine eyes. And when he was within the City, he could not mention the desolation which was to come upon it for all the righteous blood which had been spilt there, but he presently subjoyns, Matth. 23. 37. O Hierusalem, Hierusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy Children together, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings and ye would not? what words D could more emphatically express the love and tenderness of Christ towards his greatest enemies than these do? especially considering that he knew how busie they were in contriving his sufferings, while he was so passionately lamenting theirs. And when their malice had done its utmost upon him, and they saw him hanging upon the Cross and ready to yield up his last breath, he imploys the remainder of it in begging pardon for them, in those pathetical words Luke 21. 34. Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. By all which we see, that what punishments soever the Jewish nation underwent afterwards E for the great sin of crucifying the Lord of life, were no effect of meer revenge from him upon them, but the just judgement of God which they had drawn upon themselves by their own obstinacy and wilful blindness.

[Page] And that they might not think themselves surprised, when A the dreadful effects of Gods anger should seize upon them, our Saviour as he drew nearer to the time of his sufferings gives them more frequent and serious warnings of the sad consequence of their incorrigibleness under all the means of cure which had been used among them. For they were so far from being amended by them, that they not only despised the remedy, but the Physitians too; (as though that were a small thing) they beat, they wound, they kill those who came to cure them: but as if it had not been enough to have done these things to servants, (to let the world see how dangerous it is to attempt the B cure of incorrigible sinners) when God sent his own Son to them, expecting they should reverence him, they find a peculiar reason for taking him out of the way, V. 38. for then the inheritance would be their own. But so miserably do sinners miscarry in their designs for their advantage, that those things which they build their hopes the most upon prove the most fatal and pernicious to them: When these persons thought themselves sure of the inheritance by killing the Son, that very sin of theirs, not only put them out of possession, but out of the hopes of recovering what interest they had in it before. For C upon this it is that our Saviour here saith in the words of the Text, Therefore say I unto you, that the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Which words, are the application which our Saviour makes of the foregoing parable concerning the vineyard, which it seems the Chief Priests and Pharisees, did not apprehend themselves to be concerned in, till he brought the application of it so close to them; so that then they find they had condemned themselves, when they so readily passed so severe a sentence D upon those husbandmen, who had so ill requited the Lord of the Vineyard for all the care he had taken about it, that instead of sending him the fruits of it, they abuse his messengers, and at last murther his Son. When therefore Christ asks them, V. 40. When the Lord therefore of the Vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They thought the case so plain, that they never take time to consider, or go forth to advise upon it, but bring in a present answer upon the evidence of the fact. V. 41. They say unto him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his Vineyard E to other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Little did they think what a dreadful sentence they passed upon themselves and their own nation in these words: little did they think that hereby they condemned their Temple [Page] to be burned, their City to be destroyed, their Country to A be ruined, their Nation to be Vagabonds over the face of the earth; little did they think that herein they justified God in all the miseries which they suffered afterwards, for in these words they vindicate God and condemn themselves, they acknowledge Gods Justice in the severest punishments he should inflict upon such obstinate wretches. Our Saviour having gained this confession from them, and so made it impossible for them to start back in charging God with injustice in punishing them; he now applies it to themselves in these words, which I suppose, ought immediately to follow the 41. verse. B Therefore say I unto you the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, &c. Wherein we have,

1. The greatest judgement which can ever befal a people, which is the taking away the Kingdom of God from them.

2. The greatest mercy can ever be vouchsafed to a nation, which is Gods giving his Kingdom to it. And give it to a nation, &c.

In the judgement we consider the cause of it, therefore say I unto you, &c. which is either, more general as referring to all going before, and so it makes the taking away the C Kingdom of God to be the just punishment of an incorrigible people, or more particular as referring to the sin of the Jews in crucifying Christ, and so it makes the guilt of that sin to be the cause of all the miseries, which that nation hath undergone since that time.

In the later part we may consider the terms upon which God either gives or continues his Kingdom to a nation, and that is, bringing forth the fruits thereof.

We consider the former with a particular respect to the state of the Jewish nation. And therein, 1. The greatness of D their judgement implyed in those words the Kingdom of God, &c. 2. The particular reason of that judgement which was crucifying the Son of God.

1. The greatness of the judgement which befel the Jewish nation after imbruing their hands in the blood of Christ. And that will appear if we take the Kingdom of God in that double notion in which it was taken at that time. 1. It was taken by the Jews themselves for some peculiar and temporal blessings, which those who enjoyed it had above all other people. 2. It was taken by our Saviour for a clearer manisestation E of the will of God to the world, and the consequence of that in the hearts of good men; and all the spiritual blessings which do attend it. So that the taking away the Kingdom of God from them must needs be the heaviest judgement which [Page] could befal a people, since it implies in it, the taking away all A the greatest temporal and spiritual blessings.

1. We take it in the notion the Jews themselves had of it; and in this sense we shall make it evident that the Kingdom of God hath been taken from that people in accomplishment of this prediction of our Saviour. For they imagined the Kingdom of God among them to consist in these things especially, Deliverance from their enemies, A flourishing state, The upholding their Religion in Honour, chiefly in the pompous worship of the Temple. Now if instead of these things, they were exposed to the fury of their enemies so as never B any nation besides them were, if their whole Polity was destroyed so as the very face of Government hath ever since been taken from them; if their Religion hath been so far from being upheld, that the practice of it hath been rendred impossible by the destruction of the Temple, and the consequences of it, then the Jews themselves cannot but say, that in their own sense the Kingdom of God hath been taken from them.

1. They make the Kingdom of God to consist in a deliverance of them from their enemies. For this was their great quarrel at our Saviour that he should pretend to bring the C Kingdom of God among them, and do nothing in order to their deliverance from the Roman Power. They either were such great admirers of the Pomp and Splendor of the world, or so sensible of their own burdens and the yoke that was upon them, that they could not be perswaded that God should design to send his Kingdom among them for any other end but their ease and liberty. They apprehended the Crown of Thorns which was put upon our Saviours head was the fittest representation of the nature of his Kingdom; for they looked upon it as the meer shew of a Kingdom, but the reality was nothing but D affliction and tribulation; and this was a doctrine they thought of all others the least needful to be preached to them, who complained so much of what they underwent already. They took it for the greatest contradiction to talk of a Kingdom among them, as long as they were in subjection to the Roman Governors. But if Jesus of Nazareth had raised an army in defence of their liberty, and had destroyed the Romans, they would never have enquired farther concerning Prophesies, or Miracles, this had been instead of all others to them, and then they would willingly have given him that title, which E was set up only in derision as the Elogium of his Cross, Iesus of Nazareth King of the Iews: But we see how justly God dealt with them soon after, when they crucified the Son of God because he preached another Kingdom than they dream'd [Page] of, God suffers this very pretence of a temporal Kingdom to A be the occasion of the ruine of the whole Nation. For upon that it was that they denied subjection to the Romans, for they were for no other Kingdom but only Gods, ( [...], to acknowledge no other King but God, was the pretence of the War:) upon which arose that desperate Faction of the Zealots, who like so many Firebrands scattered up and down among them, soon put the whole Nation into Flames. And from this time there never was a more Tragical story either acted or written than that is of the miseries which this people underwent. For if ever there were the marks of divine B vengeance seen in the ruine of a Nation, they were in that. For they were so far from hearkning to the counsel of their wisest men, that the first thing they made sure of, was the destruction of them. Wisdom was but another name for Treason among them: and there needed no other evidence to take away the lives of any but to say that they were rich and wise. When they had thus secured themselves (as they thought) against the danger of too much Wisdom, by the removal of all such, who at least did not counterfeit madness and folly by joyning with them; then they began to suspect one another, C and three Factions at once break forth at Hierusalem, who seem'd to be afraid the Romans should not destroy them fast enough, for in the several parts of the City where they were, they were continually killing one another: and never joyned together but when they saw the Romans approaching their Walls, least they should take that work out of each others hands. By all means they were resolved to endure a seige, and as a preparative for that, they burnt up all the stores almost of provision which were among them: whence ensued a most dreadful Ios. [...] l. 6. c. 11. p. 932. famine, so great, that it was thought reason enough to take D away the life of a man, because he looked better than his neighbours, they thereby suspecting he had some concealed provisions. They brake into the houses of such whom they imagined to be eating, and if they found them so, they either forced the meat out of their mouths, or choaked them with attempting to do it. It was no news then for a Woman to forget her sucking Child, so as not to have compassion upon the Son of her Womb: for the story is remarkable in Lib. 7. c. 8. Iosephus, of a Mother that not only eat part of her Son, who sucked at her breast, but when the smell had tempted some to E break in upon her and take part with her, and were struck with horror at the sight of it, What, saith she, will you shew your selves more tender than a Woman, or more compassionate than a Mother! It was no news to see Parents and Children [Page] destroying one another for a piece of bread, to see the streets A and tops of houses covered with the bodies of those who dropt down for want of food, in so much that the stench of their carcases soon brought a Plague among them: which and the Famine raged together with that violence, that when there was no possibility of burying their dead, they threw them over the Walls of the City, and Titus beholding the incredible numbers of them lift up his hands to Heaven and cryed [...], that it was none of his doing. For he used all possible means to prevent the ruine of the City and Temple as well as the destruction of the People: but all to no B purpose, for now the time of Gods vengeance was come, yea the full time of his wrath was come. So that Titus often confessed, he never saw such an instance of divine vengeance upon a people, that when their Enemies designed to save them, they were resolved to destroy themselves. And Philost. v. Apollo [...]. l. 6. cap. 14. Philostratus tells us, that when the neighbour Provinces offered Titus a Crown, in token of his conquest of Iudaea, he utterly refused it with this saying, that he had nothing to do in the glory of that action, for he was only the instrument of Gods vengeance upon the Iews. Which we may easily believe, if C we consider almost the incredible number of those who were destroyed at that time, 1100000 reckoned in that number in the time of eight months siege, and 90000 carried away captive, which might have been thought incredible, but for one circumstance, which is mentioned by their own Historian, that at the time of the siege Hierusalem was filled with Jews coming from all parts to the solemnity of the Passover, where they were shut up asin a Prison: and their Prison made their place of Execution. Yea so prodigious were the calamities which besel this people not only at Hierusalem, but at Caesarea, Antioch, D Scythopolis, Alexandria and almost all the Cities of Syria, that Eliazer, one of the heads of the Faction, when he saw they could not hold out against the Romans at Massada, perswaded them all to kill one another by this argument Ios. p. 990. that it was now apparent that God from the beginning of the War had designed their destruction, and they had better be the executioners of his vengeance themselves than suffer the Romans to be so. Upon which they all miserably destroyed each other: who were the last who opposed the Roman Power. E

What shall we say then to these things? Have we any ground to suspect the truth of the story as either made by Christians in hatred of the Jews, or improved mightily to their disadvantage? Not so certainly, when all the circumstances [Page] are related by Jewish and Roman Writers, who had no kindness A at all for Christians. Or shall we say there was nothing extraordinary in all this, but that the Jews were a wild and seditious people that destroyed themselves and their nation? but it is evident they were not always so; they had been a people that had flourished with the reputation of wisdom and conduct, and had great success against their enemies. And the Romans themselves at this time acknowledged they never saw a people of a more invincible spirit and less afraid of dying than these were. But all this turned to their greater prejudice; and they who had been so famous in former ages for miraculous B deliverances from the power of their enemies, were now not only given up into their hands, but into those which were far more cruel, which were their own. What then can we imagine should make so great an alteration in the State of their affairs now, but that God was their friend then and their enemy now? He gave then success beyond their Counsels, and without preparation; now he blasts all their designs, divides their counsels, and makes their contrivances end in their speedier ruine. Now they felt the effect of what God had threatned long before, Hos. 9 12. Woe be unto you when I depart from you. Now C their strength, their wisdom, their peace, their honour, their safety were all departed from them. Whereby we see how much the welfare of a Nation depends upon Gods Favour and that no other security is comparable to that of true Religion. The Nation of the Jews, was for all that we know never more numerous, than at this time, never more resolute and couragious to venture their lives, never better provided of fortified Towns and strong places of retreat and all provisions for War; but there was a hand writing upon the Wall against them, Mene, Tekel, Peres, God had weighed them in the ballance and D found them too light, he divides their Nation and removes his Kingdom from them and leaves them to an utter desolation. Neither can we say this was some present infatuation upon them, for ever since all their attempts for recovering their own land, have but increased their miseries and made their condition worse than before. Witness that great attempt under Barchocebas in the time of Adrian, in which the Jews themselves say there perished double the number of what came out of Egypt i. e. above 1200000 men. After which they were not only wholly banished their land, but forbid so much as to look on E the place where the Temple had stood, and were fain to purchase at a dear rate, the liberty of weeping over it; Hie [...]o [...]. in Zeph. 1. ut qui quondam emerant sanguinem Christi, emant lachrymas suas; as St. Hierom speaks; i. e. that they who had bought the blood [Page] of Christ were now fain to buy their own tears. It would be A endless to pursue the miseries of this wretched people in all ages ever since; the slavery, disgrace, universal contempt, the frequent banishments, confiscations of estates, constant oppressions which they have laboured under. So that from that time to this, they have scarce had any estates, but never any Country which they could call their own. So that St. Augustin hath truly said, Aug. in Psal. 58. the curse of Cain is upon them, for they are vagabonds in the earth, they have a mark upon them, so that they are not destroyed and yet are in continual fear of being so. God seems to preserve that miserable Nation in being, to be B a constant warning to all others, to let them see what a difference in the same people the Favour or Displeasure of God can make, and how severe the judgements of God are upon those who are obstinate and disobedient.

2. They make the Kingdom of God to consist in the flourishing of their State, or that Polity which God established among them. He was himself once their immediate Governour and therefore it might be properly call'd his Kingdom: and after they had Kings of their own their plenty and prosperity did so much depend on the kindness of heaven to them, that C all the days of their flourishing condition might be justly attributed to a more than ordinary providence that watched over them. For if we consider how small in comparison the extent and compass of the whole land of Iudea was, being as Saint Hierom saith, (who knew it well,) but 160. miles in length from Dan to Beersheba, and 46. in bredth from Ioppa to Bethlehem; if we consider likewise the vast number of its inhabitants, there being at 1 Chron. 15. 5, 6. Davids numbering the people 1500000. fighting men who ought not to be reckoned above a 4th part of the whole, and Benjamin and Levi not taken D in, if we add to these, the many rocks, mountains and deserts in this small country, and that every 7. years the most fertile places must lye fallow, we may justly wonder how all this number of people should prosper so much in so narrow a territory. For although we ought not to measure the rules of Eastern diet by those of our Northern Climates, and it be withall true that the number of people add both to the riches and plenty of it, and that the fertile places of that land were so almost to a miracle, yet considering their scarcity of rain and their Sabbatical years, we must have recourse to an immediate E care of heaven which provided for all their necessities and filled their stores to so great abundance that 1 Kings 5. 11. Solomon gave to King Hiram every year 20000. measures of wheat, and twenty measures of oyl: every one of which contained about [Page] 30. bushels. And God himself had particularly promised to A give them the former and the latter rain, and that they might have no occasion to complain of their Sabbatical years Lev. 25. 21. every sixth year should afford them fruit for 3. years. By which we see their plenty depended not so much upon the fat of their land, as upon the dew and blessing of heaven. And if we farther consider them as environed about with enemies on every side, such as were numerous and powerful, implacable and subtle, it is a perpetual wonder (considering the constitution of the Jewish nation) that they should not be destroyed by them. For all the the males being obliged strictly by the Law B to go up three times a year to Hierusalem (we should think against all rules of Policy to leave the country naked) it seem's incredible that their enemies should not over-run the Country, and destroy their Wives and Children at that time. But all their security was in the promise which God had made; Exod. 34. 24. neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shall go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year. And to let us see that obedience to God is the best security against the greatest dangers, we never read of any invasion of that Country in one of those times, nor of any miseries they suffer'd C then; till the last and fatal destruction of Hierusalem when God had taken away his Kingdom from them. And with that, their whole Polity fell; for never since have they been able to maintain so much as the face of Government living in subjection, if not in slavery in all parts of the world. So that whether we mean the succession of power in Iudahs tribe, or the seat of power in the whole nation, or the distinction and superiority of that tribe above the rest, by the Scepter which was not Gen. 49. 10. to depart from Iudah till Shiloh came; we are sure in every one of these senses, it is long since departed from it. For neither D have any of the Posterity of David had any power over them, nor was it possible they should, considering that all Government is taken from them, and the very distinction of tribes is lost among them, they having never had any certain Genealogies since the destruction of the Temple. I know what vaine hopes, and foolish fancies, and incredible stories they have among them; of some supreme power, which they have in some part of the world but they know not where. Sometimes, they talk of their mighty numbers at Bagdad, and the officers of their own nation which are set over E them: but had they not so in Egypt, and were they ever the less in captivity there? Sometimes they boast of their Schools in those Eastern parts, such as Pombeditha, Sura, and Neharda, and the authority the Rabbins have over them; [Page] but this is just as the Orator said of Dionysius the Tyrant of A Syracuse, that he loved Government so well, that when he was not suffered to govern men there, he went to govern boys at Corinth, Cic. Tusc. 3. usque eò imperio carere non poterat. But these are tolerable in comparison with the incredible fictions of the 4. Tribes in the East, hemm'd in by a vast and unpassable ridge of mountains on every side, but when the famous Sabbatical River runs, which for 6. days bear's all before it with a mighty torrent, and carries stones of such incredible bigness that there is no passing over it: but because the admirable nature of that River is, Eldad. Danita apud Buxtorf. v. Sabbation. Praef. in Cos [...]. l'Empereur in Benjam. p. 206. 207. that it keeps the Sabbath and D rests all that day, we might have thought it had been possible to have had some entercourse with them on that day; but to prevent this they tell us, that as the water goes off, flames of fire come in the place of it and hinder all access to them. But these are things which a man must be a Iew first before he can believe: and what will not they believe rather than Christ is the Son of God! For Spes Israel. sect. 19. p. 64. Manasse ben Israel hath had the confidence in this age to say that the sand taken out of the Sabbatical River and preserved in a Tube doth constantly move for 6. days, and rests punctually from the beginning of the Sabbath C to the end of it. Which is the less to be wondred at since in all his book of the hope of Israel, he eagerly contends for the incredible fiction of Montezini of the flourishing condition of the Jews at this day in some parts of America; but the Salvo is translated thither too, for there is a mighty River which hinders any from access to them. By all which we see how vain all their attempts are to preserve any reputation of that power and Government wherein they made so great a part of the Kingdom of God among them to consist.

3. That which they thought gave them the greatest title to D the being Gods peculiar people, was the solemn worship of him at the Temple. But what is become of all the glory of that now? where are all the pompous Ceremonies, the numerous sacrifices, the magnificent and solemn Feasts, which were to be constantly observed there? how is it then possible for them to observe the Religion now which God commanded them; since he likewise forbid the doing these things any where, but in the Place which himself should appoint. So that they are under an unavoidable necessity of breaking their Law; if they do them not, they break the Law which commands them to be done, E if they do them, they break the Law which forbids the doing them in any other place but at the Temple at Hierusalem. And this I am apt to think, was one of the greatest grounds among them after the destruction of the Temple of their [Page] setting up traditions above the written Law; for finding A it impossible to keep the written Law, if they could gain to themselves the Authority of interpreting it, they were not much concerned for the Law it self. And this is one of the strongest holds of their infidelity at this day. For otherwise we might in reason have thought, that their infidelity would have been buried in the ashes of their Temple; when they had such plain predictions that the Messias was to come during the second Temple, that the prediction of Christ concerning the destruction of this Temple was so exactly fulfilled, that all attemps for the rebuilding of it were vain and fruitless. Of all which B none promissed so fair as that in Iulians time, who out of spight to the Christians, and particularly with a design to contradict the prophecy of our Saviour gave all encouragement to the Iews to build it, he provided at his own charge all materials for it, and gave command to the Governour of the Province to take particular care in it; and the Jews with great joy and readiness set about it; but when they began to search the ground in order to the laying the Foundations, the earth round about trembles with a horrible earthquake, and the flames of a sudden break out, which not only consumed the undertakers C but a great multitude of spectators, and the materials prepared for the building: In so much that an universal astonishment seized upon them, and the rest had rather leave their work, than be consumed by it. This we have delivered to us; not by persons at a great distance of time from it, but by such who lived in the same age. Orat. 2. c. Iud. [...], we are all witnesses, (saith St. Chrysost.) of the truth of these things; not by one or two, but the concurrent Testimony of the writers of that age. Not only by Chrys. in Matth. hom. 4. in Act. hom. 41. Nazian. Orat. 2. in Iulian. Ambr. Ep. 29. Theod. Impr. Russia. l. 1. c. 38. 39. Socrat. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l 5. c. 22. Theod. l. 3. c. 17. Amm. Marcell. Hist. l. 23. init. St. Chrysost. But Gregorius Nazianzenus, Ambrose, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomen, D Theodoret. And lest all these should be suspected of partiality, because Christians, we desire no more to be believed concerning it, than what is recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus a Heathen Historian of that time, who was a souldier under Iulian in his last expedition, and he asserts the substance of what I have said before. And what a strange difference do we now find in the building of a third and a second Temple? In the former, though they met with many troubles and difficulties, yet God carried them through all and prospered their endeavours with great success. Now they had all humane encouragements E and God only opposes them, and makes them desist with the loss of their workmen and materials, and perpetual dishonour to themselves, for attempting to fight against God in building him a Temple against his will. From which [Page] we see that in all the senses the Jews understood the Kingdom A of God, it was remarkably taken from them within so many years after Christ the true Passover was slain by them, as had passed from their first Passover after their going out of Aegypt to their entrance into Canaan.

The difficulty will be far less and the concernment not so great as to the Jews, to prove that the Kingdom of God in the sense our Saviour meant it for the Power of the Gospel, was taken from them. For the event it self is a clear proof of it. In stead of that therefore I shall now prove that this taking away the Kingdom of God from them, was the effect of their sin in crucifying B Christ. Therefore I say &c. To make this clear I shall proceed by these following steps.

1. That it is acknowledged by the Jews themselves that these great calamities have happened to them for some extraordinary sins. For to these they impute the destruction of the City and Temple, their oppressions and miseries ever since, and the deferring the coming of the Messias. For some of them have confessed Tit. Sanhed. c. 11. sect. 31. that all the terms prefixed for the coming of the Messias are past long ago but that God provoked by their great sins hath thus long deferred his appearance, and suffered C them in the mean while to lye under such great calamities.

2. The sin ought to be looked on as so much greater by how much heavier and longer this punishment hath been, than any inflicted upon them before. For if God did in former captivities punish them for their sins, when they were brought back again into their own land after 70. years; we must conclude that this is a sin of a higher nature which hath not been expiated by 1600. years captivity and dispersion.

3. The Jews have not suffered these calamities for the same sins for which they suffered before. For then God charged D them with Idolatry as the great provoking sin; and it is very observable that the Jews were never freer from the suspicion of this sin than under the second Temple, and particularly near their destruction. They generally pretended a mighty zeal for their Law, and especially opposed the least tendency to Idolatry; in so much that they would not suffer the Roman Ensigns to be advanced among them because of the Images that were upon them; and all the History of that time tells us of the frequent contests they had with the Roman Governours about these things: and ever since that time they have been perfect haters E of Idolatry, and none of the least hindrances of their embracing Christianity hath been the infinite scandal which hath been given them by the Roman Church in that particular.

4. It must be some sin, which their Fathers committed and [Page] continues yet unrepented of by them to this day. Their Fathers A committing it, was the meritorious cause of the first punishment, their Children not repenting of it, is the cause why that judgement lies still so heavy upon them. And now what sin can we imagine this to be, but putting to death the true Messias; which they will acknowledge themselves to be a sin that deserves all the miseries they have undergone; and it is apparent that in all this long captivity they never have had the heart to repent of the sin of crucifying Christ, other sins they confess and say they heartily repent of, but why then hath not God accepted of their repentance and brought them back into B their own Land; according to the promises he long since made unto their Fathers? Which is a certain argument it is some sin as yet unrepented of by them which continues them under all their sufferings; and what can this be but that horrid sin of putting to death the son of God, with that dreadful imprecation which to this day hath its force upon them His blood be upon us and our Children? and this sin they are so far from repenting of, that they still justify their Fathers in what they did, and Blaspheme Christ to this day in their prayers, where they think they may do it with safety. And to all this we may add C that the ensuing calamities were exactly soretold by that Christ whom they crucified, and if no other argument would convince them that he was at least a Prophet, yet the punctual accomplishment of all his predictions ought to do it: as will appear by comparing Matt. 24. 3. Matth. 24. With the series of the story. And it is observable that the very place where our Saviour foretold these things viz. the Mount of Olives, was the first wherein the Roman Army encamped before Hierusalem. And as they had crucified the Son of God, and put the Lord of glory to open shame, mocking and deriding him in his sufferings; so when the D Romans came to revenge his quarrel upon them, they took the captive Jews and crucified them openly in the view of the City, 500. oft-times in a day, [...] in different forms for sport sake as Ioseph. [...]. l. 6. c. 12. Iosephus tells us who was then in the Roman camp; and withal adds, their numbers were so great that these was no room left for the crosses to stand, or wood enough to make crosses of. And they who had bought the blood of the Son of God for 30. pieces of silver had this sin of theirs severely punished, when such multitudes of the Jews (2000 in one night) had their bowels ript up by the E Roman Souldiers in hopes to have found the gold and silver there, which they were supposed to have swallowed. And what greater argument can we have to believe that such judgements fell upon them upon the account of their sin in crucifying [Page] Christ, than that they were so punctually foretold so long before, A and had all things so exactly answering in the accomplishment of them? For when Christ spake those things the Jews thought their destruction as incredible as that he was the Messias; but what greater evidence could there be to them that he was so, than that God did so severely avenge his blood upon them, and continues to do it for their unbelief and impenitency to this very day.

But it may be some will say, what are all these things to us, we are none of those who crucified Christ or justify the doing it; Thanks be to God, the Kingdom of God is not taken from us, B but we enjoy what was taken from them. To which I answer. If we really were what we pretend to be, these things are of great consequence to be considered by us.

1. For is it nothing to us to have so great an argument of the truth of our Religion, as the sufferings of the Jews to this day is for the sin of crucifying Christ? As often as we think of them we ought to consider the danger of infidelity, and the heavy judgements which that brings upon a people. We may take some estimate of the wrath of God against that sin, by the desolation of the Country, and the miseries of the inhabitants C of it. When you think it a small sin to despise the Son of God, to revile his doctrine, and reproach his miracles, consider then what the Jews have suffered for these sins. As long as they continue a people in the world, they are the living monuments of the Vengeance of God upon an incorrigible and unbelieving nation. And it may be one of the ends of Gods dispersing them almost among all nations, that as often as they see and despise them, they may have a care of those sins which have made them a byword and reproach among men, who once were a nation beloved of God and feared by men. See what it is to D despise the offers of grace, to reproach and ill use the Messengers of it who have no other errand but to perswade men to accept that Grace and bring forth the fruits thereof. See what it is for men to be slaves to their own lusts, which makes them not only neglect their own truest interest but that of their nation too. If that had not been the fundamental miscarriage of the rulers of the Jewish nation at the time of our Saviour, they would most readily have entertained him and saved their land from ruine. See what it is for a people to be high in conceit of themselves and to presume upon Gods favour E towards them. For there never was a nation more self opinionated as to their wisdom, goodness, and interest with God than the Jews were when they began their war: and the confidence of this made them think it long till they had destroyed themselves. [Page] See what it is to be once engaged too far in a bad cause, A how hard it is though they suffer never so much for it afterwards, for them to repent of it. We might have thought the Jews when they had seen the destruction of Ierusalem would have come off from their obstinacy; but how very few in comparison from that time to this, have sincerely repented of the sins of their Fore-fathers in the death of Christ. See how hard a matter it is to conquer the prejudices of education, and to condemn the most unjust actions of those when we come to understanding, whom from our infancy we had in veneration. For it is in great measure because they were their Ancestors, that B the Jews to this day are so hardly convinced they could be guilty of so soul a sin as crucifying the Messias.

2. Is it nothing to us what they have suffered, who enjoy the greatest blessings we have, by their means, and upon the same terms which they did. For to them at first were committed the Oracles of God, we enjoy all the excellent and sacred records of ancient times from them, all the prophecies of the men whom God raised up and inspired from time to time among them. By their means we converse with those great persons, Moses, David, Solomon and others, and understand their C wisdom and piety by the writings which at this day we enjoy. By them we have conveyed to us, all the particular prophesies which relate to the Messias, which point out the Tribe, the place, the time, the very person he was to be born of. By their means we are able to consute their infidelity, and to confirm our own faith. Therefore we have some common concernment with them, and ought on that account to be sensible of their miseries. Is it nothing then to you that God hath dealt so severely with them, from whom you derive so great a part of your Religion? But if that be nothing, consider the D terms upon which you enjoy these mercies you have; and they are as the latter clause of the text assures us, no other than the bringing forth the fruits thereof. If we prove as obstinate and incorrigible as they, God may justly punish us, as he hath done them. It is but a Vineyard that God lets us, it is no inheritance; God expects our improvement and giving him the fruits of it, or else he may justly take it away from us and give it to other Husbandmen. Let us never flatter our selves in thinking it impossible God should make us as miserable and contemptible a people as he hath done the Jews; but we may E be miserable enough and yet fall short of them. Have we any such promises of his favour as they had? how great were their priviledges while they stood in favour with God above all other nations in world? Rom. 9. 4, 5. But we see, though they were the [Page] first and the natural branches, they are broken off by unbelief, A and we stand by faith. Nothing then can be more reasonable than the exhortation of the Apostle, Rom. 11. 20. be not high minded but fear. Boast not of your present priviledges; despise not those who are broken of, for consider, if God spared not the natural branches, we ought to take heed, lest he also spare V. 21. not us.

3. Is it nothing to us what the Jews suffer, since our sins are in some senses more aggravated than theirs were? For though there can be no just excuse made for their wilful blindness, yet there may be much less made for ours. For what B they did against him was when he appeared in the weakness of humane flesh, in a very mean and low condition, before the great confirmation of our faith, by his resurrection from the dead; But our contempt of Christ is much more unpardonable, not only after that, but the miraculous consequences of it, and the spreading and continuance of his doctrine in the world, after the multitudes of Martyrs and the glorious. Triumphs of our Religion over all the attempts of the persecutors and betrayers of it; after the solemn vows of our Baptism in his name, and frequent addresses to God by him, and celebrating the memory C of his death and passion. What can be more mean, and ungrateful, what can shew more folly and weakness than after all these to esteem the blood of Christ no otherwise than as of a common malefactor, or at least to live as if we so esteemed it? Nay we may add to all this, after so severe an instance of Gods vengeance already upon the Jews; which ought to increase our care, and will therefore aggravate our sin. What the Jews did they did as open and professed enemies, what we do we do as false and perfidious friends, and let any man judge which is the greater crime, to assault an enemy, or to betray a D Friend.

4. Can this be nothing to us who have so many of those Symptoms upon us which were the fore-runners of their desolation? Not as though I came hither like the son of Anani in the Jewish story, who of a sudden, 4. years before the war, cryed out in the Temple, a voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the 4. Winds, Woe to Jerusalem, Woe to the Temple, Woe to all this people, and this he continued crying saith Iosephus for 7. years and 5. months, till at last being upon the Walls of the City, he cryed Woe to my self also, E and immediately a stone come out from one of the Roman Engines and dispatched him. God forbid we should be so near a desolation as they were then; but yet our Symptoms are bad, and without our repentance and amendment God knows what [Page] they may end in. There were these following remarkable forerunners A of desolation in the Jewish state, I am afraid we are too much concerned in.

1. A strange degeneracy of all sorts of men from the vertues of their Ancestors. This Iosephus often mentions and complains of and that there was no sort of men free; from the highest to the meanest, they had all degenerated not only from what they ought to be, but from what their Ancestors were. And there can be nothing which bodes worse to a people than this doth; for the decay of vertue is really the loss of strength and interest. And if this be not among us at this day in one B sense, it must be in another, or else there would never be such general complaints of it as there are. It is hard to say that there hath ever been an Age, wherein vice, such as the very Heathens abhorred, hath been more confident and daring than in this; wherein so many have not barely left vertue, but have bid defiance to it; and are ashamed of their Baptism for nothing so much as because therein they renounced the Devil and all his works; These are the Zealots in wickedness as the Jews were in faction. The flaming sword, the voice in the Temple, the terrible Earthquakes, were not greater Prodigies in nature C among them, than men are in Morality among us, nor sadder presages of future miseries.

2. A general stupidity and inapprehensiveness of common danger: every one had a mighty zeal for his little party and faction he was engaged in, and would venture his life for that, never considering that by this means there was no more left to do, for the Romans, but to stand by and see them destroy one another. I pray God that may be never said of the Romans in another sense concerning this Church of ours. We cannot but be sensible how much they are pleased at our divisions and D they have always hay and stubble enough, not only to build with, but thereby to add fuel to our flames. How happy should we be if we could once lay aside our petty animosities and all mind the true interest of our Church and the security of the Protestant Religion by it, which ought to be dearer to to us than our lives! But that is our misery, that our divisions in Religion have made us not more contemptible, than ridiculous to forrain nations, and it puzleth the wisest among our selves to find out expedients to keep us from ruining one of the best Churches of the Christian world. E

3. An Atheistical contempt of Religion: for Iosephus who was apt enough to flatter his Country-men; tells us there never was L. 5. c. 16. [...] a more Atheistical Generation of men than at that time, the leaders of the factions were; for [Page] they contemned the Laws of men and mocked at the Laws of A of God; L. 5. c. 2. P. 887. and derided the Prophetick Oracles as fabulous impostures: they would allow no difference of sacred and prophane, for they would drink the wine of the sacrifices promiscuously, and anoint their heads commonly with the sacred oyl; in a word they owned no distinction of good and evil, P. 986. but thought the greatest wickedness to be good to them. To say there is such a Generation of men among us, is to foretel our ruine more certainly than Comets and the most dreadful presages do: For this is a sort of madness which seldom seizes upon a people, but when they are past cure, and therefore B are near their end.

4. Spiritual pride. This was very remarkable in the people of the Jews, in a time when they had as little reason for it, as any people in the world. They still looked on themselves as Gods chosen and peculiar people, his darlings and his delight, and thought that Gods honour and interest in the world were mightily concerned in their preservation. If they should be destroyed, they could not imagine what God would do for a people to serve him; for all but themselves they looked on with a very scornful pity, and thought that God hated them because C they did. They had the purity of his ordinances, in his house of prayer; and the society of the faithful among themselves: whereas all others they thought, served God only with their own inventions, or placed their Religion in dull morality. They were the people who maintained his cause, and ventured their lives and estates for it, and therefore God was bound in faithfulness to defend them, and he must deny himself if he did destroy them. It seems strange to us, that a people rejected by God for their horrible Hypocrisie, should claim such an interest in him, when they were marked out for destruction by him; D but such is the bewitching nature of spiritual pride and Hypocrisie, that it infatuates the minds of men to their ruin; and flatters them with their interest in the Promises, till God makes good his threatenings and destroys them. Never any people thought they had a richer stock of promises to live on than they; ancient promises, to Abraham Isaac and Iacob, full promises, of favour, protection, and deliverance from enemies; particular promises made to them and to no other people in the world. Besides these, they had mighty experiences of Gods kindness towards them, undoubted experiences, E not depending on the deceitful workings of fancy; but seen in very strange and wonderful deliverances; frequent experiences, throughout the whole History of their nation: and peculiar experiences being such vouchsafements to them, which God [Page] communicated to none but his chosen people. Add to these, A that they had at this time a wonderful zeal for the true worship of God as they thought; they regarded no persecution or opposition, but thought it their glory and honour to sacrifice themselves for the cause of God and his people. And yet all this while, God was the greatest enemy they had; and all their pretences signified nothing to him who saw their unsusserable pride and loathsome Hypocrisie through those thin vails they had drawn over them, to deceive the less observing sort of men by. Other sins that are open and publick God preserves the Authority of his Laws by punishing of them, but these B spiritual sins of pride and Hypocrisie, he not only vindicates his Authority over the consciences of men, but the infiniteness, of his wisdom and knowledge in their discovery, and his love to Integrity and inward holiness in the punishment of them. And therefore these sins are more especially odious to God as incroaching upon his highest and most peculiar attributes; thence he is said to resist the proud, as though he made an attempt upon God himself; and he loaths the Hypocrite in heart, as one that mocks God as well as deceives men. The first tendency to the destruction of this nation of the Jews was the C prevalency of the Pharisaical temper among them, which was a compound of pride and Hypocrisie; and when the field was over-run with these tares, it was then time for God to put in his sickle and cut them down. God forbid, that our Church and the Protestant Religion in it should be in danger of destruction, for that would be a judgement beyond fire and sword and plague, and any thing we have yet smarted by; that would be the taking away the Kingdom of God from us, and setting up the Kingdom of darkness, that would be not only a punishment to our own Age, but the heaviest curse next to renouncing D Christianity, we could entail upon posterity. But however though God in mercy may design better things for us, we cannot be sufficiently apprehensive of our danger, not so much from the business of our enemies, as those bad Symptoms we find among our selves. When there is such monstrous pride and ingratitude among many who pretend to a purer worship of God than is established by Law, as though there were little or no difference between the Government of Moses and Aaron and the bondage of Egypt. O England, England what will the Pride and unthankfulness of those who profess Religion E bring thee to! Will men still prefer their own reputation or the interest of a small party of Zealots, before the common concernments of our faith and Religion? O that we did know at least in this our day, the things that belong to our peace! [Page] but let it never be said that they are hid from our eyes. But if A our common enemy should enter in at the breaches we have made among our selves, then men may wish, they had sooner known the difference between the reasonable commands of our own Church, and the intolerable Tyranny of a forrain and usurped power: between the soft and gentle hands of a mother, and the Iron sinews of an Executioner; between the utmost rigour of our Laws, and the least of an Inquisition. If ingratitude were all, yet that were a sin high enough to provoke God to make our condition worse than it is, but to what a strange height of spiritual pride are those arrived, who ingross B all true god iness to themselves? as though it were not possible among us to go to heaven and to Church together. As though Christ had no Church for 1500. years and more, wherein not one person can be named who thought it unlawful to pray by a prescribed form. As though men could not love God and pray sincerely to him, that valued the peace and order of the Church above the heats and conceptions of their own brains. Where differences proceed meerly from ignorance and weakness, they are less dangerous to themselves or others: but where there is so much impatience of reproof, such contempt C of superiours, such uncharitable censures of other men, such invincible prejudices and stiffeness of humour, such scorn and reproach cast upon the publick worship among us; What can such things spring from but a root of bitterness and spiritual pride? I speak not these things to widen our differences or increase our animosities they are too large and too great already, nor to condemn any humble and modest dissenters from us; but I despair ever to see our divisions healed, till Religion be brought from the Fancies to the hearts of men; and till men instead of mystical notions and unacccountable experiences, D in stead of mis-applying promises and misunderstanding the spirit of prayer, instead of judging of themselves by mistaken signs of Grace, set themselves to the practice of humility, selfdenial, meekness, patience, charity, obedience and a holy life and look on these as the greatest duties and most distinguishing characters of true Christianity. And in doing of these there shall not only be a great reward in the life to come; but in spight of all opposition from Atheism, profaneness, or superstition, we may see our divisions cured and the Kingdom of God, which is a Kingdom of peace and holiness to abide and E flourish among us.

SERMON IX. Serm. IX. A B Preached at WHITE HALL. WHITSUNDAY 1669. C

[Page]

JOHN VII. XXXIX.

But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive. For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Iesus was not yet glorified.

WHat was said of old concerning the first creation D of the world, that in order to the accomplishment of it Gen. 1. 2. the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is in a sense agreeable to the nature of it as true of the renovation of the world by the doctrine of Christ. For whether by that we understand E a great and vehement mind, as the Jews generally do; or rather the Divine power manifesting it self in giving motion to the otherwise dull and unactive parts of matter; we have it fully represented to us in the descent of the Holy Ghost upon [Page] the Apostles on the day of Pentecost: For that came upon A them, Acts 2. 2. as a rushing mighty wind and inspired them with a new life and motion, whereby they became the most active instruments of bringing the world out of that state of confusion and darkness it lay in before, by causing the glorious light of the Gospel to shine upon it. And left any part should be wanting to make up the parallel, in the verse before the text, we read of the Waters too which the Spirit of God did move upon, and therefore called not a dark Abyss, but flowing rivers of living water. V. 38. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his bellie shall flow rivers of living B water: Not as though the Apostles like some in the ancient Fables were to be turned into fountains and pleasant Springs; but the great and constant benefit which the Church of God enjoys by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit upon them, could not be better set fotth than by rivers of living water flowing from them. And this the Evangelist in these words, to prevent all cavils and mistakes, tells us was our Saviours meaning; But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive. And lest any should think that our Blessed Saviour purposely affected to speak in strange C metaphors, we shall find a very just occasion given him for using this way of expression from a custom practised among the Jews at that time. For in the solemnity of the feast of Tabernacles, especially in the last and great day of the Feast mentioned v. 37. after the sacrifices were offered upon the Altar, one of the Priests was to go with a large Golden Tankard L' Empereur in Middoth. p. 67. Buxtorf. Lex. Rabb. v. [...] Hackspan. disp. Philolog. p. 488. Tremel. in not. ad Syr. N. to the fountain of Siloam, and having filled it with water, he brings it up to the water-gate over against the altar, where it was received with a great deal of pomp and ceremony, with the sounding of the Trumpets and rejoycing of the people D which continued during the libation or pouring it out before the Altar; after which followed the highest expressions of joy that were ever used among that people; insomuch that they have a saying among them, that he that never saw the rejoycing of the drawing of water, never saw rejoycing in all his life. Of which several accounts are given by the Jews, some say it had a respect to the later rain which God gave them about this time, others to the keeping of the Law, but that which is most to our purpose is, that the reason assigned by one of the Rabbies in the Ierusalem v. Buxtorf. Talmud is Esai. 12. 3. because of the E drawing or pouring out of the Holy Ghost according to what is said, with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of Salvation. By which we see that no fairer advantage could be given to our Saviour to discourse concerning the effusion of the [Page] Holy Ghost, and the mighty joy which should be in the Christian A Church by reason of that, than in the time of this solemnity; and so lets them know that the Holy Ghost represented by their pouring out of water was not to be expected by their rites and ceremonies but by believing the doctrine which he preached: and that this should not be in so scant and narrow a measure as that which was taken out of Siloam which was soon poured out and carried away but out of them on whom the Holy Ghost should come, rivers of living waters should flow; whose effect and benefit should never cease as long as the world it self should continue. So that in the words of the B text we have these particulars offered to our consideration.

1. The effusion of the Spirit under the times of the Gospel; but this spake he of the spirit which they that believe on him should receive.

2. The nature of that effusion represented to us by rivers of living waters flowing out of them.

3. The time that was reserved for it; which was after the glorious ascension of Christ to Heaven: For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Iesus was not yet glorified.

1. The effusion of the spirit under the times of the Gospel; C by which we mean those extraordinary gifts and abilities which the Apostles had after the Holy Ghost is said to descend upon them. Which are therefore called Heb 2. 4. signs and wonders, and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost: 1 Cor. 12. 6. 11. and the operations of the Spirit; of which we have a large enumeration given us in that place.

The two most remarkable which I shall insist upon and do comprehend under them most of the rest, are, the power of working miracles whether in Healing diseases or any other way; and the gift of tongues either in speaking or interpreting; they D who will acknowledge that the Apostles had these, will not have reason to question any of the rest. And concerning these I shall endeavour to prove,

1. That the things attributed to the Apostles concerning them, could not arise from any ordinary, or natural causes.

2. That they could not be the effects of an evil, but of a holy and divine spirit; and therefore that there was really such a pouring out of the spirit as is here mentioned.

1. That the things attributed to the Apostles could not arise from any meerly natural causes. It is not my present business E to prove the truth of the matters of fact, viz. that the Apostles did those things which were accounted miracles by those who saw them or heard of them; and that on the day of Pentecost they did speak with strange tongues; for these things are [Page] so universally attested by the most competent witnesses viz. A persons of the same age whose testimony we can have no reason to suspect; and not only by those who were the friends to this Religion, but the greatest enemies Jews and Heathens; and by all the utmost endeavors of Atheistical men who have not set themselves to disprove the testimony, but the consequence of it, (by saying that granting them true they do not infer the concurrence of a divine spirit) that on the same grounds any person would Question the truth of these things, he must question the truth of some other things, which himself believes on the same or weaker grounds than these are. Supposing B then the matters of fact to be true, we now enquire whether these things might proceed from any meerly natural causes, which will be the best done by examining the most plausible accounts which are pretended to be given of them. And thus some have had the confidence to say, that whatever is said to be done by the power of miracles in the Apostles might be effected by a natural temperament of body, or the great power of imagination; and that their speaking with strange tongues might be the effect only of a natural Enthusiasm, or some distemper of brain. C

1. That the power of miracles might be nothing but a natural temperament or the strength of imagination.

1. An excellent natural temper of body they say may do strange and wonderful things, so that such a one who hath an exact temperament may walk upon the waters, stand in the air, and quench the violence of the fire; and by a strange kind of sanative contagion may communicate healthful spirits, as persons that are infected do noisom and pestilential. These are things spoken with as much ease and as little reason, as any of the calumnies against Religion, which are so boldly uttered D by men who dare speak any thing as to these things but reason, and do any thing but what is good.

1. But can these men after all their confidence produce any one person in the world, who by the exquisiteness of his natural temper hath ever walked upon the waters, or poised himself in the air, or kept himself from being singed in the fire? If these things be natural how comes it to pass that no other instances can be given but such as we urge for miraculous? We say indeed that Matth. 14. 29. Christ walked on the Sea, but withal we say this was an argument of that divine power in him, which E as Iob saith, Job. 9. 8. alone spreadeth out the heavens and treadeth upon the waves of the Sea: We say that 2 Kings 2. 11. Elijah was carried up into Heaven by a Chariot of fire and a whirlewind; but it was only by his power, Psal. 104. 4. who maketh the winds his [Page]messengers, and flames of fire his Ministers, as some render A those words of the Psalmist: We say that the three Children were preserved Dan. 3. 25, 26. in the fiery fornace, that they had no hurt; and even Nebuchadnezzar was hereby convinced, that he was the true God, which was able to preserve his servants from the force of that devouring element which was therefore so much worshipped by those Eastern people because it destroyed not only the men but the Gods of other nations. But is this enough to satisfie any reasonable men that these things were done by natural causes; because they were done at all? For that is to suppose it impossible there should be miracles; which is to say B it is impossible there should he a God; which is an attempt somewhat beyond what the most impudent Atheists pretended. But in this case nothing can be reasonably urged but common experience to the contrary; if these were things which were usually done by other causes there would be no reason to pretend a miraculous power: but we say it is impossible that such things should be produced by meer natural causes, and in this case there can be no confutation but by contrary experience. As we see the opinion of the Ancients concerning the uninhabitableness of the the torrid Zone, and that there were no Antipodes, C are disproved by the manifest experience to the contrary of all modern discoverers. Let such plain experience be produced, and we shall then yield the possibility of the things by some natural causes, although not by such an exact temperament of body, which is only an instance of the strong power of imagination in those who think so whatever that may have on others. Such a temperament of body as these persons imagine, considering the great inequality of the mixture of the earthy and aërial parts in us, being it may be as great a miracle it self, as any they would disprove by it. D

2. But supposing such a temperament of body to be possible, how comes it to be so beneficial to others, as to propagate its vertue to the cure of diseased persons? We may as well think that a great beauty may change a Black by osten viewing him, or a skilful Musitian make another so by sitting near him, as one man heal another because he is healthful himself. Unless we can suppose it in the power of a man to send forth the best spirits of his own body and transfuse them into the body of another; but by this means that which must cure another must destroy himself. Besides the healthfulness of a person lies much E in the freedom of perspiration of all the noxious vapours to the body; by which it will appear incredible that a man should preserve his own health by sending out the worst vapors and at the same time cure another, by sending out the best.

[Page] 3. Supposing we should grant that a vigorous heat and a A strong arm may by a violent friction discuss some tumor of a distempered body; yet what would all this signifie to the mighty cures which were wrought so easily and with a word speaking and at such great distance as were by Christ and his Apostles? Supposing, our Saviour had the most exact natural temper that ever any person in the world had; yet what could this do to the cure of a person above twenty miles distance? for so our Saviour cured the Son of a Nobleman who lay sick at Capernaum, when himself was at Joh 4. 46, 53. Cana in Galilee? So at Matth. 8. 6, 13. Capernaum he cured the Centurions servant at his own house without going thither. Thus we find the Apostles curing B though Acts 5. 15. 19. 12. they did not touch them; and that not one or two but multitudes of diseased persons. And nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that so many men should at the same time work so many miraculous cures by vertue of a temperament peculiar to themselves: for how come they only to happen to have this temperament and none of the Jews who had all equal advantages with them for it? Why did none of the enemies of Christ do as strange things as they did? How come they never to do it before they were Christians, nor in such an extraordinary manner till after the day of Pentecost? C Did the being Christians alter their natural temper and infuse a sanative vertue into them which they never had before? Or rather was not their Christianity like to have spoyled it if ever they had it before; by their frequent watchings, fastings, hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, stripes and imprisonments, racks and torments? Are these the improvers of an excellent constitution? if they be, I doubt not but those who magnifie it in them, would rather want the vertue of it, than be at the pains to obtain it. D

2. But what a natural temper cannot do, they think the power of imagination may: and therefore in order to the enervating the power of miracles, they mightily advance that of imagination: which is the Idol of those who are as little Friends to reason in it as they are to Religion. Any thing shall be able to effect that, which they will not allow God to do: nay the mostextravagant thing which belongs to humane nature shall have a greater power than the most holy and divine spirit. But do not we see, say they, strange effects of the power of imagination upon mankind? I grant we do, and in nothing E more than when men set it up against the power of God: yet surely we see far greater effects of that in the world than we do of the other. The power of imagination can never be supposed to give a being to the things we see in the world; but [Page] we have the greatest reason to attribute that to a divine and A infinite power; and is it not far more rational that that which gave a Being to the course of nature should alter it when it pleaseth, than that which had nothing to do in the making of it. So that in general, there can be no competition between the power of God and the strength of imagination as to any extraordinary effects which happen in the world. But this is not all; for there is a repugnancy in the very nature of the thing that the power of imagination should do all those miracles which were wrought by Christ or his Apostles. For either they must be wrought by the imagination of the Agent or B of the Patient: if of the Agent, then there can be no more necessary to do the same things than to have the same strength of imagination which they had; what is the reason then that never since or before that time were so many signs, and wonders wrought as there were then by the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord? If Peter and Iohn cured the lame man by the strength of imagination; why have no persons ever since cured those whose welfare they have as heartily desired as ever they could do his? Certainly if imagination could kill mens enemies, there would never need Duels to destroy them, nor C Authority to punish such as do it: and if it could cure Friends, there would need no Physitians to heal and recover them and death would have nothing to do, but with persons that were wholly Friendless. If they say, that persons are not sufficiently perswaded of their own power; and therefore they do see little good; let any of those who contend the most for it attempt the cure when they please of any the most common infirmity of mankind; and if they cannot do that, let them then perswade us they can do miracles by that, which they cannot cure the tooth-ach by. But here they will say, the imagination D of the Patient is necessary in order to a miracle being wrought upon him: not such I am sure as Christ and his Apostles wrought, who not only healed the lame and the blind, but raised the dead; and what power of imagination do they suppose in Lazarus when he had lain four days in the Grave? and however they think of the soul they must in this case allow this power of imagination to be immortal. So that were there no other arguments but that of raising the dead that demonstrates it impossible that what Christ or his Apostles did, did depend on the strength of Fancy in those on whom they wrought E their miracles.

Object. But, say they, did not Christ and his Apostles require believing first in all persons that had miracles wrought upon them; and why should this be, but because the strength of[Page]imagination was required to it. And is it not expresly said, A that Christ could not do any mighty works among his own country men because of their unbelief; by which it appears that the efficacy of his miracles did depend on the faith of the persons. To which I answer,

Answ. 1. That Christ did not always require faith in the person on whom he wrought his miracles; for then it had been impossible he should ever have raised any from the dead; which we are sure he did. And did not Act. 10. 9, 12. St. Paul raise Eu [...]ychus from the dead? and can any think so absurdly as that faith was required from a dead man in order to his resurrection? B So that the greatest miracles of all others were wrought, where there was no possibility of believing in those on whom they were wrought.

2. When in miraculous cures believing was required it was to shew for what end those miracles were wrought, viz. to confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel by them: they did not work miracles to be admired by the people as Simon Magus would have done; the Apostles had no such intolerable vanity to be cried up for Gods, though they did such great things; not like that Caesar of the Atheists as some call him, who concludes C one of his Dialog. 54. Doemoniacis. Dialogues with that horrible piece of vanity (to say no more of it) aut Deus es aut Vaninus, and Pomponatius his Master before him had said Pomponat. de Incantat. c. 4. p. 53. Philosophi sunt Dii terrestres, (and you must be sure to reckon him in the number;) but how was it possible for these men to discover more their mean thoughts of a Deity than by making him to be as despicable as themselves? What boasting and ostentation would these men have made of themselves, if they could have done but the thousand part of what the Apostles did? But they were men did as far excel all such in all true vertue and real D excellency as they did in that miraclous power which God had given them. If they required men to believe whom they cured, it was that they might cure both body and soul together: but sometimes they cured persons whom they saw not: as the Acts 19. 11, 12. hankerchiefs from St. Paul at Ephesus cured the diseased when they were carried to them. But generally they took all opportunities to convey the Doctrine of Christianity into the minds of those, out of whose bodies they cast either diseases or Devils. But is it not said that Christ could do no mighty works among them because of their unbelief, and the power of E his disciples could not be greater than his own? To which I answer,

1. It is no where said in the Scripture that Christ could do no miracles at all among them because of their unbelief: for in [Page] one place it is said, Mark 13. 58. And he did not many mighty works A there because of their unbelief. He did miracles enough to convince them; but when he saw their obstinacy, he would not cast away any more upon them. And in that other place where it is said, Matth. 6. 5. that he could there do no mighty work, it is presently added, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And what absurdity is there that Christ should do no extraordinary miracle among them, among whom he saw that himself and his miracles were both equally contemned. It is not the method of divine goodness to bestow the largest kindnesses at first; those who improve the beginnings B of savour shall have more, but those who despise the first may justly be rejected from any farther kindness.

2. When it is said that he could not, that expression doth not imply any impossibility in the thing but a deliberate resolution to the contrary, so it is used Acts 4. 20. Act. 4 20. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. Who questions but there was a possibility in the thing, that they might have held their peace? but it was a thing which upon great deliberation they had resolved not to do. So Revel. 2. 2. thou canst not bear them which are evil; and 2 Cor. 13. we can do C nothing against the truth; but for the truth. From which it appears that this can be no prejudice to the power of Christ in working miracles, but only shews his just resolution not to do it, considering the contempt wherewith he had been entertained among them.

2. It is pretended by those men who set themselves to undervalue those miraculous gifts which the Apostles had, that the gift of tongues might be only the effect of an Enthusiastick heat, or some distemper of their brains, as men in a high Fever are apt to speak such things and words, which while they D are in health they could never do. But that such unreasonable imaginations do more argue a distempered brain, than any thing we assert concerning these divine persons will easily appear from these considerations.

1. That no violent heat whatsoever can form a new language to a man which he never knew before. If language had been natural to man there might have been some reason for it; but that we all know to be an arbitrary thing: and as well might a blind man paint with an exact difference of colours, or one write plainly who could never read, as any E person by the meer heat of his Phancy speak suddenly in a tongue which he never learnt. There have been some who have said Vania. Dial. 54. p. 407. that the mind of man hath naturally all kinds of languages within it self, and it wants nothing but some [Page]mighty heat to stir men up to speak in any kind of them. A But we are to take notice that those things are accounted wit when spoken against Religion, which would have been nonsense and contradictions if spoken for it. And certainly nothing could be more absurdly said, than for the same men to make all the imaginations we have of things to come in by our senses, and yet to say that the mind of man can have those things in it, which he never learnt or heard. If this supposion were true we might invert that saying of Act. 26. 24. Festus to St. Paul much learning hath made thee mad; for then madness or that which is the next to it, a great heat of brain, would B make men the most learned. If this were true, there would be a much easier way of attaining to speak in the languages of all nations than that which many take to gain a very few of them: for the heightening of Phancy either by Wine, or a degree of madness would inspire men with skill in tongues to a miracle.

2. But supposing such a thing possible, which is far from being so, yet it is very remote from our present case; for the Apostles made it manifest to all persons that they were far enough from being inspired with the vapours of wine or touched C with any Enthusiastick madness. They spake with strange tongues, but in such a manner as convinced great numbers of their hearers of the excellency of that doctrine which was delivered by them. As St. Paul answered Festus, Act. 26. 25. I am not mad most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness; so they did not speak incoherent and insignificant words which madness makes men do, nor any mean and trivial things, meerly for ostentation of their gifts, but they spake though with divers tongues, Act. 2. 11. the great or wonderful things of God: So their auditors confessed with admiration. D These are not the effects of Wine or Madness as St. Peter at large proves, against the unreasonable cavils of some V. 13. who mocked and said they were full of new wine. Which he doth with so great success that the same day 3000 persons disowned V. 41. their former course of life and embraced Christianity. Surely, madness was never more infectious, never made men more wise and sober, than this did, if the Apostles were acted only by that. When was there ever better and more weighty sense spoken by any, than by the Apostles after the day of Pentecost? With what reason do they argue, with what strength E do they discourse, with what a sedate and manly courage do they withstand the opposition of the Sanhedrin against them? they never fly out into any extravagant passion, never betray any weakness or fear: but speak the truth with boldness and [Page] rejoyce when they suffer for it. It could be no sudden heat which acted them on the day of Pentecost, for the same Spirit A and power continued with them afterwards: they lived and acted by vertue of it, so that their life was as great a miracle, as any that was wrought by them. Their zeal was great but regular, their devotion servent and constant, their conversation honest and prudent, their discourses inflaming and convincing, and the whole course of their lives breathed nothing but glory to God, and good will towards men. If they are called to suffer for their Religion, with what constancy do they own the truth, with what submission do they B yield to their persecutors, with what meekness and patience do they bear their sufferings! If differences arise among Christians, with what care do they advise, with what caution do they direct, with what gentleness do they instruct, with what tenderness do they bear with diffenters, with what earnestness do they endeavour to preserve the peace of the Christian Church! when they are to plant Churches, how ready to go about it, how diligent in attending it, how watchful to prevent all miscarriages among them! When they write Epistles to those already planted, with what Authority do they teach, C with what Majesty do they command, with what severity do they rebuke, with what pity do they chastise, with what vehemency do they exhort, and with what weighty arguments do they perswade all Christians to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things! So that such persons who after all these things can believe that the Apostles were acted only by some extravagant heats may as easily perswade themselves that men may be drunk with sobriety, and mad with reason, and debauched with goodness. But such are fit only to be treated in a dark room, if any can be found darker than their understandings D are.

2. But yet there may be imagined a higher sort of madness than these men are guilty of. viz. That when men are convinced that these things could not be done by meer Mechanical causes, then they attribute them to the assistance of Spirits, but not to the holy and divine, but such as are evil and impure. A madness so great and extravagant, that we could hardly imagine that it were incident to humane nature, unless the Scripture had told us that some had thus blasphemed the son of man, and either had or were in danger of blaspheming the E Holy Ghost too. And this is properly blaspheming the Holy Ghost, (which was not given, as our text tells us, till after Christs ascension) when men attribute all those miraculous gifts which were poured out upon the Apostles in confirmation [Page] of the Christian doctrine to the power of an unclean Spirit. A For so the Evangelist St. Luke, when he mentions the Luke 12. 10. blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which shall not be forgiven immediately subjoyns; their bringing the Apostles to the Synagogues and Magistrates and Powers; and adds, that the Holy Ghost, (even that which they so blasphemed in them) should teach them in that same hour what they ought to say. I deny not but the attributing the miraculous works of Christ who had the Holy Spirit without measure, to an evil Spirit was the same kind of sin; but it received a greater aggravation after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the miraculous B effusion of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles. For now the great confirmation was given to the truth of all that Christ had said before; he had some times concealed his miracles and forbid the publishing of them: and to such he appeared but as the son of man, of whom it is said 1 Cor. 2. 8. that had they known him they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory: and St. Peter more expresly; Act. 3. 17. and now Brethren I wote that through ignorance you did it as did also your Rulers. But now since his resurrection and ascension when God by the effusion of the Holy Ghost hath given the largest and fullest Testimony to the C doctrine of the Gospel; if men after all this shall go on to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, by attributing all these miracles to a Diabolical power, then there is no forgiveness to be expected either in this world, or the world to come, Because this argues the greatest obstinacy of mind, the highest contempt of God, and the greatest affront that can be put upon the Testimony of the holy Spirit; for it is charging the Spirit of truth to be an evil and a lying Spirit. By which we see what great weight and moment the Scripture lays upon this pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and what care men ought to D have how they undervalue and despise it, and much more how they do reproach and blaspheme it. They might as well imagine that light and darkness may meet and embrace each other, as that the infernal Spirits should imploy their power in promoting a doctrine so contrary to their interest? For Heaven and Hell cannot be more distant, than the whole design of Christianity is from all the contrivances of wicked Spirits. How soon was the Devil's Kingdom broken, his Temples demolished, his oracles silenced, himself baffled in his great design of deceiving mankind when Christianity prevailed in the E world? Having thus far asserted the truth of the thing viz. that there was such an effusion of the Holy Spirit, now come to consider.

2. The nature of it as it is represented to us by Rivers of [Page]living waters flowing out of them that believe: by which we A may understand

1. The plenty of it called Rivers of waters.

2. The benefit and usefulness of it to the Church.

1. The plentifulness of this effusion of the Spirit; there had been some drops, as it were, of this Spirit which had fallen upon some of the Jewish nation before; but those were no more to be compared with these rivers of waters, than the waters of Siloam which run softly, with the mighty River Euphrates. What was the Spirit which Bezaleel had to build the Exod. 31. 3. Tabernacle with, if compared with that Spirit which the B Apostles were inspired with for building up the Church of God? what was that Exod. 28 3. Spirit of Wisdom which some were filled with to make garments for Aaron, if compared with that Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation which led the Apostles into the knowledge of all Truth? What was that Spirit of Courage which was given to the Iudges of old, if compared with that Spirit which did convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement? What was that Spirit of Moses which was communicated to the 70. elders, if compared with that Spirit of his son, which God hath shed abroad in the hearts of his C people? What was that Spirit of prophesie, which inspired some Prophets in several ages, with that Act. 2. 16, 17. pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh; which the Apostle tells us was accomplished on the day of Pentecost? But these Rivers of Waters though they began their course at Ierusalem upon that day, yet they soon overflowed the Christian Church in other parts of the world. The sound of that rushing mighty wind was soon heard in the most distant places: and the fiery tongues inslamed the hearts of many who never saw them. These gifts being propagated into other Churches, and many other tongues D were kindled from them as we see how much this gift of tongues obtained in the Church of Corinth: And so in the History of the Acts of the Apostles, we find after this day how the Holy Ghost fell upon them which believed, and what mighty signs and wonders were done by them.

2. The benefit and usefulness of this effusion of the Spirit; like the Rivers of Waters that both refresh and enrich, and thereby make glad the City of God. The coming down of the Spirit was like Isa. 44. 3. the pouring water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground▪ Now Isa. 41. 18. God opened E the Rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; that the poor and needy who seek water might be refreshed, and they whose tongues failed for thirst might satisfy themselves with living water. These are some of the lofty expressions [Page] whereby the Courtly Prophet Isaiah sets forth the great A promise of the spirit; none better befitting the mighty advantages the Church of God hath ever since enjoyed by the pouring out of the spirit than these. For the fountain was opened in the Apostles, but the streams of those Rivers of living water have run down to our Age: not confined within the banks of Tiber, nor mixing with the impure waters of it; but preserved pure and unmixed in that sacred doctrine contained in the Holy Scripture. Within those bounds we confine our faith, and are not moved by the vain discourses of any who pretend to discover a new Fountain head to these waters at Rome; and B would make it impossible for them to come down to us through any other Channel but theirs. But supposing they had come to us through them, have they thereby gotten the sole disposal of them, that none shall tast but what and how much they please? and must we needs drink down the filth and mud of their Channel too? As long as they suffer us to do what Christ hath commanded us to do, viz. John7. 37. Revel. 22. 17. to take of these waters of life freely we do our own duty and quarrel not with them. But if they go about to stop the passage of them, or adulterate them with some forrain mixture, or strive with us as the Herdsmen of C Gerar did with Isaac's Herdsmen saying the Gen. 26. 20. Water is ours, then if the name of the well be Esek, if contentions do arise, the blame is not ours; we assert but our own just right against all their encroachments. For as Isaac pleaded V. 18. that he only digged again the wells of water which they had digged in the days of Abraham his Father, and although the Philistins had stopped them after the death of Abraham, yet that could be no hindrance to his right, but he might open them again, and call their names after the names by which his Father had called them. So that is the substance of our Plea, we pretend D to nothing but to clear the passage which they have stopped up and was left free and open for us in the time of the Apostles and Fathers; we desire not to be imposed upon by their later usurpations: we plead for no more but that the Church of God may have the same purity and integrity which it had in the primitive times, and that things may not only be called by the names by which the Fathers have called them; but that they may be such as the Fathers have left them. But otherwise let them boast never so much of the largeness of their stream, of the Antiquitity of their Channel, of the holiness of their waters, E of the number of their Ports and the riches of their trading; nay and let them call their stream by the name of the Ocean too (if they please), yet we envy them not their Adma [...] and Pharpar and all the Rivers of Damascus, so we may sit down quietly [Page] by these living waters of Iordan. We are contented with the A miracles which the Apostles wrought without forging or believing new ones; we are satisfied with the gift of strange tongues which they had, we know no necessity now of speaking much less of praying in an unknown tongue: we believe that Spirit infallible which inspired the Apostles in their holy writtings and those we acknowledge, embrace and I hope are willing to dye for: But if any upstart Spirit pretend to sit in an infallible chair, we desire not to be brought under bondage to it, till we see the same miracles wrought by vertue of it, which were wrought by the Apostles to attest their infallibility. B

3. The last thing to be spoken to, is, the season that this effusion of the Spirit was reserved for, which was after the glorious ascension of Christ to Heaven. This was reserved as the great Donative after his Triumph over Principalities and Powers, when he was ascended up on high he sends down the greatest gift that ever was bestowed upon mankind viz. this gift of his Holy Spirit. Hereby Christ discovered the greatness of his purchase, the height of his Glory, the exercise of his Power, the assurance of his Resurrection and Ascension: C and the care he took of his Church and People; by letting them see that he made good his last promise to them of sending them another Comforter who should be with them to assist them in all their undertakings, to direct them in their doubts, to plead their cause for them against all the vain oppositions of men. And he should not continue with them for a little time as Christ had done, but he should abide with them for ever i. e. so as not to be taken from them as himself was, but should remain with them, as a pledge of his love, as a Testimony of his truth, as an earnest of Gods favour to them now, and their D future inheritance in heaven; for he should comfort them by his presence, guide them by his counsel, and at last bring them to glory.

Nothing now remains but that as the occasion of our rejoycing on this day doth so much exceed that of the Jews at their ceremony of pouring out the water; so our joy should as much exceed in the nature and kind of it the mirth and jollity which was then used by them. With what joy did the Israelites when they were almost burnt up with thirst in the wilderness cast of the pleasant streams which issued out of the E rock? 1 Cor. 10. 4. that rock saith the Apostle was Christ and the gifts of the Spirit are that stream of living water which flows from him, and shall not we express our thankfulness for so great and unvaluable a mercy? Our joy cannot be too great [Page] for such a gift as this so it be of the nature of it i. e. a spiritual A joy. The Holy Ghost ought to be the Fountain of that joy which we express for Gods giving him to his Church. Let us not then affront that good Spirit, while we pretend to bless God for him let us not grieve him by our presumptuous sins, nor resist his motions in our hearts by our wilful continuance in them. The best way we can express our thankfulness is by yielding up our selves to be guided by him in a holy life, and then we may be sure our joy shall never end with our lives, but shall be continued with a greater fulness for ever more. B C D E

SERMON X. Serm. X. A B Preached at WHITE-HALL. MARCH 2. 1669. C

[Page]

ISAIAH LVII. XXI.

There is no peace, saith my God to the Wicked.

IF we were bound to judge of things only D by appearance, and to esteem all persons happy who are made the object of the envy of some and the flattery of others, this text would seem to be a strange Paradox, and inconsistent with what daily happens in the word. For what complaint hath been more frequent among men almost in all ages, than that peace and E prosperity hath been the portion of the wicked, that their troubles have not been like other mens, that none seem to enjoy greater pleasures in this world than they who live as if there were no other? The consideration of which hath been a [Page] matter of great offence to the weak, and of surprise to the wisest; A till they have searched more deeply into the nature of these things (which the more men have done the better esteem they have always had of divine providence) and from thence have understood that the true felicity of a mans life lies in the contentment of his own mind, which can never arise from any thing without himself, nor be enjoyed till all be well within. For when we compare the state of humane nature with that of the beings inferiour to it, we shall easily find that as man was designed for a greater happiness than they are capable of; so that cannot lie in any thing which he enjoys in common B with them, (such as the pleasures of our senses are) but must consist in some peculiar excellencies of his being. And as the capacity of misery is always proportionable to that of happiness; so the measure and the kind of that must be taken in the same manner that we do the other. Where there is no sense of pleasure there can be none of pain; where all pleasure is confined to sense, the pain must be so too; but where the greatest pleasures are intellectual, the greatest torments must be those of the mind. From whence it follows that nothing doth so much conduce to the proper happiness of man, as that C which doth the most promote the peace and serenity of his mind: nothing can make him more miserable than that which causeth the greatest disturbance in it. If we can then make it appear that the highest honours, the greatest riches, and the softest pleasures can never satisfie the desires, conquer the fears, nor allay the passions of an ungoverned mind, we must search beyond these things for the foundations of its peace. And if notwithstanding them there may be such a sting in the conscience of a wicked man, that may inflame his mind to so great a height of rage and fury, which the diversions of the world D cannot prevent, nor all its pleasures cure: we are especially concerned to fix such a notion of mans happiness which either supposes a sound mind or else makes it so; without which all the other things so much admired can no more contribute towards any true contentment than a magnificent Palace, or a curiously wrought bed to the cure of the Gout or Stone. All which I speak, (not as though I imagined any state of perfect tranquility or compleat happiness were attainable by any man in this present life: for as long as the causes are imperfect the effect must be so too: and those Philosophers who discoursed E so much of a happy state of life did but frame Ideas in Morals as they did in Politicks, not as though it were possible for any to reach to the exactness of them, but those were to be accounted best which came the nearest to them:) but I therefore [Page] speak concerning a happy state of life for these two reasons. A

1. That though none can be perfectly happy, yet that some may be much more so than others are, i. e. they may enjoy far greater contentment of mind in any condition than others can do; they can bear crosses, and suffer injuries with a more equal temper; and when they meet with vicissitudes in the world they wonder no more at it, than to see that the wind changes its quarter, or that the Sea proves rough and tempestuous which but little before was very even and calm. They who understand humane nature have few things left to wonder at; and they who do the least wonder, are the least surprised; and they B who are the least surprised are the least troubled; and those are the happiest men as this world goes, who meet with fewest troubles in it. The Italians have a shrewd Proverb, that there is less mony, less wisdom, less honesty in the world than men generally make account of; I will not stand to maintain the truth of it, but the less men believe of these things, the less they are deceived, and the less they are deceived the less they are troubled. For no troubles are greater than those which are the most unexpected; none are so unexpected as those which come upon men who are only undeceived by their own experience: C For they undergo a great deal of trouble to gain a little wisdom whereas a true judgement and consideration of these things before hand, keeps the mind of man more steady and fixt amidst all the contingencies of humane affairs. By which we see that wisdom of it self hath a great influence upon the quiet and peace of mans mind and the happiness of his life: but if we add to that the inseparable property of true wisdom, viz. patience and submission to the Will of God upon the consideration of his infinite Wisdom and Goodness, he must be strangely blind that cannot discern a greater peace and serenity D following these two in the minds of men, than where folly and irreligion raign. Thus far then we have gained, that Wisdom and Piety tend very much to the lessening the troubles of a mans life; and therein lies the far greatest part of the happiness of this imperfect State. For it is a vain thing to expect in so open a condition as we live in here that no cross winds should blow upon us; but if they only shake our branches and make our leaves fall, as long as the root holds firm and the body entire, the former beauty and glory will return again. It can be no disparagement to the most skilful Pilot, to have his E Vessel tossed upon a tempestuous Sea, but to escape with little damage when he sees others sink down and perish, shews the great difference which wisdom gives in the success, where the dangers are equal and common. So that not only some men [Page] may meet with fewer troubles in the world than others do; but A supposing they meet with the same, some are far more happy in passing through them than others are. And this is the fairest sense I know can be given of those otherwise extravagant speeches of the Philosophers of old, concerning the Wise man being happy in the Bull of Phalaris, or under the greatest racks and torments, not as though they could be so senseless to imagine that any man could be as happy in his torments as out of them; but that taking him in the same State with another man who wants that constancy of mind which he hath, he may be said to be happy in respect of the other. By which B we see that although no state of life can be said to be compleatly happy, yet some may be much nearer than others can be. Which was necessary to be premised in order to the right understanding the design of our following discourse: which is to shew.

2. That some course of life to any man who considers what he doth, is utterly inconsistent with a state of Peace and Tranquillity; I mean the course of Sin and Wickedness. So the Prophet assures us from the mouth of God himself: in the words of the text. There is no peace saith my God to the Wicked. Which words are spoken on purpose by the Prophet, to shew C how much the wickedness of men doth hinder them from enjoying that peace and happiness which they might have had without it; for in the foregoing words he represents God as shewing great pity to the scattered remainders of a broken and distressed people; though he had punished them severely for their sins, and banished them out of their native country, yet he promiseth them, that those who put their trust in him should possess the land and again inherit his holy mountain. v. 13. and therefore speaks that the way might be cast up and D prepared for their return, and every impediment taken out of the way, v. 14. for the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity; will again dwell in his high and holy place, viz. at Hierusalem (so the words may be understood, for the Hebrew verb is future) but especially with those who were humbled for their sins, who are here called the humble and contrite ones. v. 15. For God would not always contend with them, for he knew they were not able to stand before him; v. 16. and although his punishment of them was just for their sins, v. 17. yet God took notice of their repentance and would therefore E heal their breaches, and conduct them back again to their own land, and thereby give so great an occasion of joy and triumph, that by it he is said to restore comforts to those who mourned for the calamities they lay under. [...]. 18. yea he would grant [Page] them so much inward peace and outward prosperity, that A they should far and near joyn in their praises to God for it; and therefore he is said to create the fruit of the lips peace, peace, &c. But all this while they must have a care of deceiving themselves, though God did restore them to their own land with abundance of joy and peace, in expectation that the remembrance of their former calamities and the present blessings they enjoyed would make them abhor the sins which had provoked God to punish them; yet if they should return to their wickedness again, or continue in it after so great mercies, they would soon find that their wickedness would overthrow B their peace, and nothing but discontent and trouble would follow upon it; as the natural product of it. For like the troubled Sea that is tossed up and down with violent and impetuous winds, fomes and rages, one wave beating against another, and the effect of all this commotion is nothing but casting upon the neighbour shore a greater burden of unprofitable mire and dirt: such would the effect of their wickedness be among them, v. 20. it would make them restless and unquiet in themselves, having no one certain motion but tossed up and down with every contrary blast of wind, and producing nothing by all these various C agitations but unprofitable counsels and unsuccesful designs. But lest the Prophet should be supposed to speak all this out of discontent and passion, he confirms what he had said from the mouth of God in these few but smart words of the Text. There is no peace, saith my God to the wicked.

The words we see are general and indefinite, both as to the nature of the peace here mentioned, and the notion of Wickedness implyed; and therefore I shall handle them in their due extent by shewing that no one kind of true peace is consistent with any sort of prevailing wickedness: whether by peace we D mean the peace a man hath with himself in the tranquillity of his mind; or the peace which men have in society with one another. In either of these senses it will appear true, that there is no peace to the wicked.

1. Taking peace, for the tranquillity of a mans mind; in order to which it is necessary for a man to have some certain foundation to build his peace upon, and that he be secured from those things which will overthrow it; both which shew it impossible for a wicked man to have any true peace in his mind, because he can have no certain grounds to build it upon; E and those things do accompany his wickedness, which will certainly overthrow it:

1. A Wicked man can have no certain foundations for his peace. By which I do not mean any contracted dulness, or [Page] bruitish stupidity, which if we will call peace the most insensible A parts of the creation do infinitely exceed us in it; but such a composure and settlement of our minds, which ariseth from a due consideration of things; and differs as much from the former temper as a vigorous and healthful state of body doth from the dull effects of a Lethargy. And such a peace as this no wicked man can ever have but upon one of these suppositions.

Either (1.) That Wickedness is but a meer name of disgrace set upon some kind of actions, but that really there is no such a thing as sin, or the differences of good and evil; or B else,

(2.) Supposing there is such a thing as sin, it is ridiculous to believe there ever should be such a punishment of it as men are affrighted with;

(3.) Or Lastly, supposing there be a punishment of sin to come, it is madness to abstain from the present pleasures of sin for the fear of it. These being only the imaginable grounds a wicked man can have any peace in his mind from; I shall particularly shew the falseness and the folly of them.

1. That there is no such thing as Sin or Wickedness in the C world, and that the differences of good and evil are meerly arbitrary things, and that those are names only imposed upon things by the more cunning sort of men to affright men from the doing some actions, and to encourage them to do others. But what a miserable case are those in, who can never enjoy any contentment in themselves unless all the differences of good and evil be utterly destroyed! We should conclude that mans condition desperate, who believes it impossible for him to have any ease in his mind, unless he could be transformed into the shape of a beast, or petrified into the hardness of a rock. These D are things not utterly impossible, but yet they are possible in so remote a degree that it is all one to say, he can have no ease, as to say, that he expects it only upon those terms: But it is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of humane nature, or a being endued and acting with reason, to make all things equally good or evil. For what doth reason signifie as it respects the actions of men, but a faculty of discerning what is good and fitting to be done, from what is evil and ought to be avoided? And to what purpose is such a faculty given us, if there be no such difference in the nature of things? Might not E men with equal probability argue that there is no such thing as a difference in the things about which life and sense are conversant, as in those wherein reason is imploved? With what impatience would those men be heard who should assert that [Page] there is no such thing as a difference in the qualities of meats A and drinks, but that they do all equally tend to the preservation of life, that it is pedantical and beneath a Gentleman to talk of any such thing as Poisons, that will so suddenly and certainly destroy mens lives, and that these are things which none talk of or believe besides those whose trade is either to kill or cure men? With how much wit and subtilty might a man argue upon these things, that it is impossible for any man to define what the nature of poison is, or in what manner it destroys the life of man, that men have conquered the malignity of it by use, and that the same things which have been B poison to some, have been food and nourishment to others? But notwithstanding all these plausible arguments, none of these brave spirits dare venture the experiment upon themselves: and yet these (only changing the terms) are the very same arguments used against the natural differences of good and evil; viz. the difficulty of defining or setting the exact bounds of them, and the different customs or apprehensions of men in the world concerning the things which are called good and evil. If we proceed farther to the objects of sense; how ridiculous would those persons appear that should with a mighty confidence C go about to perswade men, that the differences between light and darkness, between pleasure and pain, between smells and tasts and noises are but phantastick and imaginary things? Who would ever believe that those are men of the most excellent sight to whom light and darkness are equal: (for others who pretend not to so much wit, are wont to call such persons blind.) Or that those have the most exquisite sense, that feel no difference of pain and pleasure, (which was wont to be thought the sign of no sense at all.) And surely the persons I am now arguing against, love their palats too well, to admire D those who can discern no difference of tasts; and would be well enough contented to be thought deaf if they could put no distinction between the pleasant sound of vocal or instrumental Musick, and the harsh jarring of two saws drawn cross each other. Thus it appears that nothing would make men more ridiculous than to explode and laugh at the difference that there is in the means of life and the objects of sense: let us now proceed higher. Dare any man say there is no such thing as reason in man, because there appears so little of the truth of it in men, and so much of the counterfeit of it in Bruits? or that E there is no such thing as a difference of Truth and fashood, because they are so commonly mistaken for one another? What reason then imaginable can there be, that there should not be as wide a distance in the matters of our choice, as in the objects [Page] of our sense and understanding? Is it that we have natural A faculties of sense and perception, but not of choice? that, every one is able to resute by his constant experience, that finds a greater liberty in his choice, than in his perception. The reason of which is wholly unintelligible, unless a difference be found in the nature of the things proposed to his choice; that some have a greater excellency and commendableness in them, more agreeable to humane nature, more satisfactory to the minds of those who choose them, than others are. And must all this difference be destroyed, meerly because all men are not agreed, what things are good and what evil? We call goodness the B beauty of the soul; and do men question whether there be such a thing as beauty at all, because there are so many different opinions in the world about it? Or is deformity ever the less real because the several nations of the world represent it in a colour different from their own? Those arguments then against the natural differences of good and evil must needs appear ridiculous, which will be granted to hold in nothing else but only the thing in question. And yet in the midst of all the ruines and decays of humane nature, we find such evident footsteps and impressions of the differences of good and evil in the minds C of men, which no force could extinguish, no time could deface; no customs could alter. Let us search the records of ancient times, and enquire into the later discoveries of nations, we shall find none so barbarous and bruitish as not to allow the differences of good and evil; so far as to acknowledge, that there are some things which naturally deserve to be praised, and others which deserve to be punished. Where as if good and evil were meerly names of things, there can be no reason assigned, why praise and honour should necessarily belong to some things and infamy and disgrace to follow others. If the D things themselves be arbitrary, the consequences of them would be so too. But is it possible to imagine that any man should deserve to be punished as much for being true to his trust, as for betraying it; for honouring his Parents as for destroying them; for giving to every one their due, as for all the arts of injustice and oppression? Is it possible for men to suffer as much in their esteem, for their fidelity, temperance, and chastity, as they always do for their falseness, intemperance, and lasciviousness? How comes the very name of a lie to be a matter of so much reproach and dishonour, that the giving of it is thought an injury E so great as cannot be expiated without the satisfaction of the givers blood, if it be in it self self so indifferent a thing? Nay, I dare appeal to the consciences of the most wicked persons, whether they are so well pleased with themselves, when [Page] they come reeking from the satisfaction of their lusts, and sodden A with the continuance of their debaucheries, as when they have been paying their devotions to God, or their duties to their Parents, or their respects to their Country or Friends? Is there not (whether they will or no,) an inward shame, and secret regret and disquiet following the one, and nothing but ease and contentment the other? What should make this difference in those persons who love their vices far more than they do the other? and if it were possible for them would bring vertue more out of countenance than sin is: yet after all their endeavors, though vice hath the stronger interest, vertue B hath the greater Reverence. Thus considering humane nature as it is, we find indelible characters remaining upon it of the natural differences of good and evil; but then if we consider it with a respect to the Maker of it, that will cast a clearer light upon them, and make those characters appear more discernible. For nothing can be more absurd than to imagine a creature owing its being, and all it hath to the bounty of a Being infinite in all Perfections, and yet not to be obliged to give all honour, worship and service to it. To rip up the bowels of a Mother to whom a man owes his coming into the world; to assassinate C a Prince, to whom he owes all the honours and riches he hath in it; are crimes of so black a nature, that the worst of men can hardly be supposed to commit them, nor the worst of Devils to defend them: But to blaspheme God and to deride his service seems to have a much greater malignity in it, in as much, as our obligations to his honuor and service, are much greater than they can be to any created Being. But if there be no natural differences of good and evil, even this must be accounted an indifferent thing, as well as the former: and what safety can there be in conversing with those men, whom no D bonds of Religion, Nature, or Gratitude can tye? Let us, if it were possible suppose a Society of men constituted of such who make all things equally good and evil in their own nature, what a monstrous Leviathan would they make among them? no Religion, no Law, no Kindness, no Promises, no Trust, no Contracts could ever oblige them not to do any thing which they thought might be done with safety. By which it appears that these principles are so inconsistent with humane Nature, and all the bonds of Religion and Duty, that whoever owns them must suppose mankind more savage than the beasts E of prey, he must renounce his reason, destroy all Religion, and disown a Deity. For if there be a God, we must be inviolably bound to observe and obey him; and the very notion of a God implies a being infinitely perfect; and if there be such [Page] perfections in God, they cannot but be so in their own nature, A and if they be so in their own nature they must in their degree be so in us as well as in him; so that if goodness, holiness and righteousness be absolute perfections as they are in God, they must be perfections so far as they are in us; and the contrary must be imperfections; which makes the differences of good and evil so far from being arbitrary, that those things which agree to the perfections of God as well as his will must needs be good, and those which are repugnant to them must needs be evil. The result of all is, that if a wicked man can have no peace in his mind, without overthrowing the differences B of good and evil, he can have no peace without the greatest violence offered to God, to nature, and himself, and if this be the way to Peace let his Reason judge.

2. The second foundation which a wicked man must build his peace upon is, that supposing there be such a thing as sin, yet that men have no cause to disturb themselves with the fears of so great a punishment to follow after, as that which sinners are afrighted with. But what security can a sinner have against the fears of punishment when his conscience condemns him for the guilt of his sins? Is it that God takes no notice at all of C the actions of men, that he will not disturb his own eternal peace and happiness by observing all their follies? So some of old imagined, who pretended that out of meer kindness to the Deity they gave him his Quietus est, and took from him as much as in them lay, the care and government of the world: but it was really a greater kindness to their lusts which made them do it, and makes many now a days so willing upon the same frivolous pretences to exclude the providence of God out of the world, for can any man who considers what God is think his providence inconsistent with his happiness? If we speak of D such weak and imperfect beings as the wisest of mankind are, it might not a little contribute to their peace to be eased of the cares of Government. But the reason of that is because all things cannot be foreseen by them before they happen, nor well managed when they do, whence come oversights and disappointments and consequently all the uneasie effects of these. But when we speak of God, we speak of a being infinitely Wise and Powerful, from whom nothing can be hid, and whom nothing can resist: and what can be imagined more easie than for a conjunction of infinite Wisdom and Power, to contrive E and manage all the affairs of the world? If therefore wicked men could suppose that God could not know what they did, or could not punish them if he knew it, they might indulge themselves in greater security: but to suppose his Wisdom so great [Page] that he cannot but know their actions, and his Power so irresistible, that it is impossible for them to stand before him when A he designs to punish, to flatter themselves with the hopes of impunity is an extravagant piece of folly and madness. Or is it then, that though God doth take notice of their actions, he will not be so much displeased as to punish them? but this is as repugnant to the Justice and holiness of God, as the other was to his Wisdom and Power. Will not the righteous God who hath made Laws to govern mankind see to the execution of them? for if he did not hate sin why did he so strictly forbid it? if he doth hate sin, he will severely punish it. Nay B hath he not been severe already in the execution of his judgements upon the world for sin? what did Adam and his posterity suffer for the first sin? what did the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of the Jews suffer for their wickedness? And is not he the same God still? Is his hand shortned that he cannot strike, or doth his heart fail that he dare not punish? Surely of all nations we have no cause to think so, and of all Ages; not in this of ours; wherein we have smarted so much by the just displeasure of God against our sins. But where then lies the sinners hope? Is it at last, that though God may C sometimes punish men in this life for their sins he will never do it in that to come? If he could have said it was impossible he should do it, and proved it sufficiently, there might have been some ground for his security, but that is impossible he should ever do; but to hope he will not do it when he hath declared that he will, is instead of bringing peace to his own mind to set God at variance with himself. For nothing can be more plainly revealed, more frequently inculcated, more earnestly pressed than Rom. 2. 5, 6, 8, 9. that there is a day of wrath to come, wherein the righteous judgement of God shall be revealed; and wherein D God will render to every man according to his deeds: wherein tribulation, and anguish and wrath shall be upon every soul of man that doth evil; wherein the secrets of all hearts and actions shall be disclosed, when the graves shall be opened, John 5. 29 and they that have done good shall come forth to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. For the Lord Iesus himself even he who dyed for the salvation of all penitent sinners, 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8, 9. shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel E of Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. Then shall that dreadful sentence be passed upon all impenitent sinners, Matth. 25. 41. depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for [Page]the Devil and his Angels. Which words are so full of horrour and astonishment as might not only disturb the sinners peace A and security, but awaken him to such a sense of his sins, as to loath, abhorr and forsake them, and thereby flie from the wrath to come.

3. But after all this, is it possible to suppose, that any should think their present pleasures would countervail all the miseries of another life? which is the last imaginable foundation for a sinners peace, while he continues in his wickedness. The most professed Epicureans that ever were, made this one of their fundamental maxims, that no pleasure was to be chosen, which brought after it a pain greater than it self: on which B account they made temperance and sobriety necessary to a pleasant life, because excesses and debaucheries leave far more of burden than of ease behind them. But what would these men have said, if they had believed the intolerable anguish of a tormented mind, the racks of an enraged conscience, the fire of everlasting vengeance to be the consequent of all the pleasures of sin? they must upon their own principles have concluded that none but madmen and fools would ever venture upon them. And that not only because the after pain would C so much exceed the present pleasure; but because the fears of that pain to come must abate proportionably of the pleasure which might otherwise be enjoyed. Suppose a man certainly knew that upon the pleasing his palat with the most excellent wine, and gratifying his appetite, with the most delicate food he must be racked with the stone, and tormented with the Gout as long as he should live; can we imagine such a person could have any pleasure in his mind (whatever his palat had) in the emjoyment of them while he did consider the consequent of them. But what are these miseries compared with the insupportable D horrour of a conscience loaden with guilt, sunk under despair, having a gnawing worm and unquenchable flames; the wrath of an almighty God, and the fury of his vengeance to encounter with, without the least hopes of conquering? I do not now ask, what the sinner will then think of all his Atheism and Infidelity when the greatness of his miserie shall convince him that it is an Almighty hand which lays it upon him; nor what pleasure he can have in the thoughts of his former excesses, when not one drop can be procured for the mitigation of his flames? nor what satisfaction those lusts E have given him, the very thoughts of which pierce his soul, and if it were possible would rend him in pieces with the torment of them? but that which I demand is, what peace of mind a sinner can have in this world who knows not how soon he may [Page] be dispatched to that place of torment? can he bind the hands A of the Almighty, that he shall not snatch him away till he doth repent? or can he reverse the decrees of heaven, or suspend the execution of them? can he abrogate the force of his Laws, and make his own terms with God? can he dissolve the chains of darkness with a few death-bed tears, and quench the flames of another world with them? O foolish sinners who hath bewitched them with these deceitful dreams! will heavengates fly open with the strength of a few dying groans? will the mouth of hell be stopt with the bare lamentation of a sinner? Are there such charms in some penitent words extorted B from the fear of approaching misery, that God himself is not able to resist them? Certainly there is no deceit more dangerous, nor I fear more common in the world, than for men to think that God is so easie to pardon sin, that though they spend their lives in satisfying their lusts; they shall make amends for all by a dying sorrow and a gasping repentance. As though the unsaying what we had done, or wishing we had done otherwise since we can do it no longer, (for that is the bottom of all putting off repentance to the last) were abundant compensation to the justice of God, for the affronts of C his Majesty, contempt of his Laws, abuse of his patience, and all the large indictments of wilful and presumptuous sins, which the whole course of our lives is charged with. The supposal of which makes the whole design of Religion signify very little in the world.

Thus we have examined the foundations of a sinners peace, and found them very false and fallacious:

2. we are now to shew that those things do accompany a sinners course of life which certainly overthrow his peace; which are these two. 1. The reflections of his mind. 2. The D violence of his passions.

1. The reflections of his mind, which he can neither hinder nor be pleased with. No doubt if it were possible for him to deprive himself of the greatest excellency of his being, it would be the first work he would do, to break the glass which shews him his deformity. For as our Saviour saith John 3. 20. every one that doth evil hateth the light lest his deeds should be reproved; not only the light without which discovers them, but that light of conscience within, which not only shines but burns too. Hence proceeds that great uneasiness which a sinner feels E within as often as he considers what he hath done amiss, which we call the remorse of conscience; and is the natural consequent of the violence a man offers to his reason in his evil actions. It was thought a sufficient vindication of the innocency [Page] of two Brothers by the Roman Judges, when they were accused A for Parricide; that although their Father was murthered in the same room where they lay, and no other person was found on whom they could fasten the suspicion of it, yet in the morning the door was open and they fast asleep. For as the Orator saith, Pro Sextioc. 23. no man can imagine, that those who had broken all the Laws of God and nature by so great an act of wickedness could presently sleep upon it: for they who do such things can neither rest withoutcare, nor breath without fear. We are not to believe, saith he, the fables of the Poets, as though wicked men were haunted and terrified with the burning torches of B the furies; but every mans wickedness is the greatest terrour to himself, and the evil thoughts which pursue wicked men are their constant and domestick furies. It would be endless to repeat what force the more civil Heathens, have given to conscience either way, as to the peace which follows innocency, and the disquiet which follows guilt. Which they looked on as the great thing which governed the world, De N. Deorum. l. 3. quâ sublatâ jacent omnia as the orator speaks, without which all things would be in great disorder, for these punishments they are sure not to escape, De leg. l. 1. though they may do others; and these C they thought so great and weighty that upon this ground they vindicated divine providence as to the seeming prosperity of wicked men, thinking it the most unreasonable thing in the world, to call those persons happy who suffered under the severe lashes of their own consciences. If there were such a force in the consciences of those who had nothing but the light of nature to direct them, how much greater weight must there be when 2 Cor. 5. 11. the terrours of the Lord are made known by himself, Rom. 1. 18. and the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men? I know that wicked men D in the height of their debaucheries pretend to be above these things, and are ready to laugh at them as the effects of a strong spleen and a weak brain: but I appeal to their most sober thoughts, when the steams of wine are evaporated, and the intoxication of evil company is removed from them, when in the deep and silent night, they revolve in their minds the actions of the foregoing day; what satisfaction they then take in all the sinful pleasures they have pursued so eagerly? but especially; when either their lusts have consumed their bodies, or the vengeance of God hath overtaken them; when death E begins to seize upon their vitals, and themselves not wholly stupified through the power of their sins or their disease, let then, if it were possible, any represent the fears, the horrour and astonishment which the consciences of wicked men labour under [Page] in remembrance of their evil actions. How mean and poor A would they leave themselves if with all their honours and riches they could purchase to themselves, a reprieve from death and from the miseries which follow after it? what would they then give for the comfort of a good conscience, and the fruit of a holy, righteous, and sober life? with what another sense of Religion do men whose minds are awakened speak then, in comparison of what they did in the days of their mirth and jollity? Neither is this to take them at the greatest disadvantage, as some of them have been ready to say; for I suppose their minds as clear then as at any time, and so much the clearer, B because freed from the impediments of such freedom of their thoughts at another time; for the same thoughts would have possessed them before, only the pleasures and the hopes of life diverted their minds from them, but now the nearness of the things they feared, and the weight and consequence of them make them more diligently examine and impartially consider them. But that demonstrates the great misery of a sinners State; that what cures the other greatest troubles of our life doth the most increase his, which is the exercise of reason and consideration, that allays the power of griefs, that easeth the C mind of vain fears, that prevents many troubles and cures others, that governs other passions and keeps them in their due bounds; but this is it which of all things doth the most increase the trouble of a wicked mans mind; for the more he considers, the worse he finds his condition; and while he finds his condition so bad, he can never enjoy any peace in his mind.

2. The violence of his passions: those a wicked man hath lost the command of, or else he could never be a wicked man, and whosoever is under the power of any unruly passion forseits all his peace by it. For what peace can ever be expected in such D a State of violence and usurpation, where the calm government of reason is cast off as an unnecessary burden, and every passion under the pretence of liberty sets up for an arbitrary power? Nay▪ what confusion and disorder must needs follow, where the powers of the mind, which ought to keep all in order, are themselves in subjection to their own slaves: and none ever govern so ill as those which ought to obey. How serene and quiet is the mind of a man where the superiour faculties preserve their just authority? How composed is his temper, how moderate his desires, how well governed his fears! But where E once that authority is lost, how extravagant is the rage of men, how unruly their lusts, how predominant their fears! What peace had Xerxes in his mind when in stead of conquering his foolish passion, he challenged mount Athos into the [Page] field, and no doubt would have run fast enough if he had seen A it moving? What pleasure was it to see that mighty Monarch whip the Sea in a rage, as though the waves had been under his discipline, and would run the faster for the fear of his rod? What harm had the hair of his head done to that man who pulled it off with the violence of his passion, as though as the Philosopher told him, baldness would asswage his grief? Was ever Varus the nearer to restoring his Legions for Augustus knocking his head against the wall in a rage about the loss of them? What injury did Neptune suffer, when he displaced his image in the Circenstan games, because he had an B ill Voyage at Sea? What height of madness and folly did that modern Prince's rage betray him to, who, as the French Mora list saith, Montagne. Ess. l. 1. c. 4. having received a blow from heaven, sware to be revenged on Almighty God, and for 10. years space forbid all publick exercise of devotion towards him? I instance in these things to let us see there is nothing so ridiculous, nothing so absurd, nothing so irreligious but a violent passion may betray men to. And if such things ever break forth into actions, what may we conceive the inward disturbance is, where the outward shew (which usually dissembles the inward passion), C betrayed so much rage and disorder; for where such flames break out, what combustion may we conceive within? But it is not only this kind of passion which is so great an enemy to the peace of a mans mind, but when his desires are restless, and his fears unconquerable, and this is the case of every wicked man. His lusts inflame him and the means he uses to quench them inrage them more; his ambition grows greater as his honour doth; and there is no hopes of a cure, where the disease thrives under the remedy; his love of riches is necessary to maintain his honour and feed his lusts; and where passions so D great, so many, so different all increase by being gratified what disturbance and confusion follows? But supposing that vices in men may agree (as the Devils in Hell do) to the destruction of mens souls; yet what security can a wicked man have against the power of his fears? and we all know no passion disquiets more than that doth. And how many sorts of fears possess a sinners mind? fears of disappointments, fears of discovery, and fears of punishment, but supposing he could master all the rest and the fears of punishment as to this life too; yet the fears of that to come is sufficient to rob him of any peace in his mind, E and impossible to be overcome by him. For no sound reason can be given against his fears, but the strongest arguments in the world to confirm them. Nay the greatest grounds of others comforts are the strongest foundations for his fears, as [Page] the belief of a God, and Providence, and a life to come: A And what can give that man peace, whom the very thoughts of the God of peace doth disturb so much? That is the first kind of Peace we have shewed to be in consistent with a course of wickedness, which is the peace and tranquillity of a mans own mind.

2. Taking this peace for an outward peace, and so these words not in respect of every person in particular and that peace which belongs to him as such, but as they are joyned together in community; so they imply that nothing undermines our civil peace and the prosperity of a nation so much as prevailing B wickedness doth. So that although mighty deliverances were given the people of the Jews in a very strange and unexpected manner, when God raised up Cyrus his servant, a man from whom no kindness was expected, and made him the great instrument of setling the people in their land under their own lawful Princes, and restored the true worship of God among them, yet if they grew wanton in the days of their prosperity, and forgat the God who delivered them, they must expect a return of Calamities again upon them; for there is no Peace saith my God to the wicked. i. e. This is the method of his C providence, and the way he useth in governing the world; while Religion and vertue flourish among them, they may hope for peace and prosperity; but if those decay and sin and wickedness prevail, no other arts imaginable will secure a lasting peace, or an abiding tranquillity. All other ways are but tricks and devices, and there are many of them in the hearts of men, but the Counsel of the Lord that shall stand against them all; and that Counsel he hath declared himself by the mouth of another Prophet, Jer. 18. 9, 10. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a Kingdom to build and D to plant it, if it do evil in my sight that it obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Thus we find it was in this people of the Jews, upon their first return from captivity they shewed some zeal towards the rebuilding the Temple and setling the worship of God there; but this fit did not hold them long, they soon fell back to their former sins and disobedience to the Laws of God, upon this they brake out into greater schisms and factions in matters of Religion than ever were known among them before; for then the Pharisees fell into a seperation under a pretence of E greater sanctity and severity of life, and these by their shew of zeal gained a mighty interest among the people; so great that the Princes stood in awe of them: then the Sadducees (who were most part Courtiers as Iosephus tells us) out of opposition [Page] to the other looked on Religion as a meer political A institution, cryed out against faction and popularity, and questioned at least whether there were any Spirits or life to come. And what peace followed upon these things? very little among themselves we may be sure by the heats and animosities that were continually among them; the issue of which was, the Temple was profaned by Antiochus, rifled by Pompey; their own Princes deposed and Usurpers ruled over them; and when the Son of God himself could not reclaim them, their Temple, nation, and government were all involved in one common ruin. Thus we see how these words of B the Prophet were fulfilled upon this people.

But some have been ready to say that Gods proceedings with the Iews ought not to be drawn into an example to any other nations, because his dealings with them were peculiar, and by vertue of a particular Covenant which God made with them, which he hath not done with any other nation in the world. This objection were of great force, if God himself had not in the words before mentioned, declared the same concerning any other nation or Kingdom, and if the instances were not as remarkable in other people as in that of the Jews. If we search C the monuments of former ages, and consider the strange revolutions which have happened in the mighty emipres and Kingdoms of the world; we shall find no one circumstance more considerable in them than this, that the nations which God hath made use of for a scourge to others have been remarkable for nothing so much, as for the vertues opposite to the most prevailing vices among those who were overcome by them. Thus when the Chaldean Monarchy fell, the Persians who were the sword in Gods right hand, were eminent for nothing more than their great temperance and frugality, while the Babylonians D perished by their luxury and effeminacy. And when the Persian Monarchy degenerated into the same vices, the Macedonians were raised up to be the executioners of Gods wrath upon them, because they were at that time freer than any other people from those softening and destroying vices. And when the Persian luxury had infected their conquerours the severe Disciplin and vertue of the Romans made them more successful in subduing the remainders of the Graecian Empire, than their courage and number could. And when the Romans themselves (after a long time of Gods forbearance with E them, and several respites from punishment by the vertue and conduct of such excellent Princes as Antoninus and Alexander Severus in the Heathen, and Constantine and Theodos [...]us in the Christian Empire) fell into as great a degeneracy of manners [Page] as any we ever read of, then did God let loose (as it were) the A Goths and Vandals and other barbarous nations out of their several dens who seemed to be designed rather to destroy than to conquer. So sudden, so numerous, so irresistible in most places were the incursions they made. But what was it which gave them so strange success? was it their long practice and skill in military affairs? No, they were rude and unexperienced: was it their mighty courage? No, they were despised by the Romans as great cowards, and begged for peace when it was denyed them. But as Sal. l. 7. p. 161. &c. Salvian tells us who lived in those times and knew the manners of both sides, the Goths and Vandals B were of a very severe chastity, among whom fornication was punished sharply, and adultery a crime scarce heard of; whereas all manner of uncleanness and licentiousness did abound among the Romans, who yet were then called Christians. The Goths were devout and pious, acknowledging divine providence, making their solemn supplications to God before their victories, and returning him the praise of them afterwards; but the Romans were fallen into that degree of irreligion and Atheism that nothing was more common among them than to droll upon Religion. P. 166. A nostris omnia fermè C religiosa ridentur, as Salvian speaks: they thought all things managed by chance or fate and ascribed very little to God. And where these sins abounded most, they were carried up and down as by a divine instinct, as they confessed themselves, and where they conquered, P. 168. as he particularly speaks of the Vandals in Africa, they purged all the stews of uncleanness, and made so great a reformation by the severity of their Laws, that even the Romans themselves were chast among them. Thus we see how those great and mighty Empires have been broken to pieces by the weight of their D impieties falling upon them.

May the consideration then of these things move us in time to a reformation of our lives, before our iniquities grow full and ripe for vengeance. We have seen many revolutions, and God knows how many more we may see; if that should be true of us, which the same Author saith of the Romans in the midst of all their changes Sola tantum vitia perdurant, their vices remained the same still. Thanks be to God, that things have a fairer appearance at present than they have had, and never so good a time to amend as now: but if men flatter themselves E with present security, and their sins increase as their fears abate, the clouds which seem dispersed may soon gather again, and the face of the Heavens will change if we do not.

And if it be not in our power to reclaim others from their [Page] sins, let us endeavour to preserve the honour of our Church by amending our own, and convince our enemies by living A better than they. And give me leave to say, and so I conclude, that among all the expedients which have been thought of for the peace of this Church and Nation, that of leaving off our sins, and leading vertuous and exemplary lives, will at last prove to be the most successful. B C D E

SERMON XI. Serm. XI. A B Preached at WHITE HALL. MRRCH 27. 1672. C

[Page]

II CORINTH. V. II.

Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord, we perswade men.

IF ever any Religion was in all respects accomplished D for so noble a design as the reformation of mankind, it was the Christian, whether we consider the Authority of those who first delivered it, or the weight of the arguments contained in it, and their agreeableness to the most prevailing E passions of humane nature. Although the world was strangely degenerated before the coming of Christ; yet not to see great a degree, but that there were some who not only saw the necessity of a cure, but offered their assistance in order [Page] to it; whose attemps proved the more vain and fruitless, because A they laboured under the same distempers themselves which they offered t [...] cure in others; or the method they prescribed was mean and trivial, doub [...]ful and uncertain, or else too nice and subtle to do any great good upon the world. But Ch [...]istianity had not only a mighty advantage by the great holiness of tho [...]e who preached it; but by the clearness and evidence, the strength and efficacy of those arguments which they used to perswade men. The nature of them is such, that none who understand them can deny them to be great, their clearne [...]s such, that none that hear them can choo [...]e but understand B them, the manner of recommending them such, as all who understood themselves could not but desire to hear them. No arguments can be more proper to mankind than those which work upon their reason and consideration, no motives can stir up mo [...]e to the exercise of this than their own happiness and misery; no happinoss and misery can deserve to be so much considered as that which is eternal. And this eternal state is that which above all other things the Christian Religion delivers with the greatest plainnes, confirms with the strongest evidence, and enforces upon the consciences of men with the C most powerful and perswasive Rhetorick. I need not go beyond my text for the proof of this, wherein we see that the Apostles sesign was to perswade men i. e. to convince their judgements to gain their affections; to reform their lives; that the argument they u [...]ed for this end was no less than the terrour of the Lord, not the frowns of the world nor the fear of men, nor the malice of Devils; but the terrour of the Almighty, whose Majesty makes even the Devils tremble, whose power is irresisistible, and whose wrath is insupportable. But it is not the terrour of the Lord in this world, which he D here speaks of, although that be great enough to make us as miserable as we can be in this State: but the terrour of the Lord which sha [...]l appear at the dreadful day of judgement of which he peaks in the verse before the text. V. 10. For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. This is the terrour here meant which relates to our final and eternal State in another world, wh [...]n we must appear before the judgement seat of Christ, &c. And of this he speaks, not out of Poetical Fables, ancient E traditions, uncertain conjectures, or probable arguments but from full assu [...]ance of the truth of what he delivers, Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord we perswade men. In which words we shall consider these particulars.

1. The argument which the Apostle makes choice of to perswade men,

A

which is, the terrour of the Lord.

2. The great assurance he expresseth of the truth of it, knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord.

3. The efficacy of it in order to the convincing and reforming mankind; knowing therefore &c. we perswade men.

1. The argument the Apostle makes choice of to perswade men by, viz. the terror of the Lord. In the Gospel we find a mixture of the highest clemency and the greatest severity, the richest mercy and the strictest justice, the most glorious rewards and intollerable punishments; accordingly we find God B therein described as a tender Father, and as a terrible Judge, as a God of peace, and as a God of vengeance, as an everlasting happiness and a consuming fire; and the Son of God as coming once with great humility, and again with Majesty and great glory; once, with all the infirmities of humane nature and again with all the demonstrations of a Divine power and presence: once, as the Son of God to take away the sins of the world by his death and passion; and again, as Judge of the world with flaming fire to execute vengeance on all impenitent sinners. The intermixing of these in the doctrine C of the Gospel was necessary in order to the benefit of mankind by it, that such whom the condescension of his first appearance could not oblige to leave off their sins, the terrour of his second may astonish when they foresee the account that will be taken of their ingratitude and disobedience; that such who are apt to despise the meanness of his birth, the poverty of his life, and the shame of his death, may be filled with horrour and amazement when they consider the Majesty of his second coming in the clouds Jud. v. 15. to execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly, not only of their ungodly D deeds, but of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. And we shall easily see what great reason there is that this second coming of Christ to judgement should be called the terrour of the Lord, if we consider,

1. The terror of the preparation for it.

2. The terror of the appearance in it.

3. The terror of the proceedings upon it.

4. The terror of the sentence which shall then be passed.

1. The terror of the preparation for it; which is particularly E described by St. Peter in these words, 2 Pet. 3. 10. But the day of the Lord will come as a Thies in the night, in which the Heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with servent heat, the earth also and the works that [Page]are therein shall be burnt up. This day will come as a Thief in A the night, by way of surprise, when it is not looked for, and that makes it so much the more dreadful. A lesser calamity coming suddenly doth astonish more, than a far greater which hath been long expected; for, surprisals confound mens thoughts, daunt their Spirits, and betray all the succours which reason offers. But when the surprise shall be one of the least astonishing circumstances of the misery men fall into, what unconceivable horrour, will possess their minds at the app [...]ehension of it? What confusion and amazement may we imagine the soul of that man in, whom our Saviour speaks of B in his parable, who being pleased with the fulness of his condition Luke 12. 19, 20. said to his soul, soul thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry; but God said to him, thou fool this might thy: soul shall be required of thee, then whose shall those things be that thou hast provided? Had God only said, this night shall thy burns be burnt, and thy substance consumed to ashes which thou hast laid up for so many years, that would have caused a strange consternation in him for the present, but he might have comforted himself with the hopes of living and getting more. C But, this night shall thy soul be required of thee; O dreadful words! O the tremblings of body, the anguish of mind, the pangs and convulsions of conscience which such a one is tormented with at the hearing of them! What sad reflections doth he presently make upon his own folly? And must all the mirth and ease I promised my self for so many years; be at an end now in a very few hours? Nay, must my mirth be so suddenly turned into bitter howlings, and my ease into a bed of flames? Must my soul be thus torn away from the things it loved, and go where it will hate to live and can never dye? D O miserable creature! to be thus deceived by my own folly, to be surprised after so many warnings, to betray my self into everlasting misery? fear, horrour and despair have already taken hold on me and are carrying me, where they will never leave me.

These are the Agonies but of one single person whom death snatches away in the midst of his years, his pleasures and his hopes: but such as these the greatest part of the world will fall into when that terrible day of the Lord shall come. Luke 17. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. For as it was in the days of Noe; so shall it be also in the E day of the Son of Man; they did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entred into the Ark; and the flood came and destroyed them all; Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot, they did [Page]eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they A builded, but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstome from Heaven and destroyed them all: even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Ch. 21. 35. For as a snare shall it come on all them, that dwell on the face of the whole earth: If some of the è expressions seem to relate to the unexpected coming of Christ to judgement upon Hierusalem, we are to consider that was not only a fore-runner but a figure of Christs coming to judge the world. And that may be the great reason why our Saviour mixeth his discourses of both these so much together as he B doth: for not only the judgement upon that nation was a draught, as it were, in little of the great day, but the symptoms and fore-runners of the one were to bear a proportion with the other: among which the strange security of that people before their destruction was none of the least. And the surprise shall be so much the more astonishing when the day of the Lord shall come upon the whole world, as the ter [...]or and consequents of that univerial judgement shall exceed the overthrow of the Jewish Polity.

But supposing men were aware of its approach and prepared C for it; the burning of the Temple and City of Hierusalem, though so frightful a spectacle to the beholders of it, was but a mean representation of the terror that shall be at the conflagration of the whole world. When the Heavens shall pass away with a great [...]oise, or with a mighty force as some interpret it, and the Elements shall melt with fervent heat, i. e. when all the fiery bodies in the upper regions of this world, which have been kept so long in an even and regular course within their several limits, shall then be let loose again, and by a more rapid and violent motion shall put the world into D confusion and a flame together. For then the present frame of things shall be dissolved, and the bounds set to the more subtile and active parts of matter shall be taken away, which mixing with the more gr [...]ss and earthy shall sever them from each other and by their whirling and agitation set them all on sire. And if Rev. 6. 13. the Stars falling to the earth were to be understood in a literal sense, none seems so probable as this, that those aethereal fires shall then be scattered and dispersed thoughout the universe, so that the earth and all the works that are therein shall be turned into one funeral Pile. Then E the foundations of the earth shall be shaken, and all the combustible matter which lies hid in the bowels of it shall break forth into prodigious flames; which while it rouls up and down within, making it self a passage out, will cause an universal [Page] quaking in all parts of the earth, and make the Sea to A roar with a mighty noise, which will either by the violent heat spend it self in vapour and smoak, or be swallowed up in the hollow places of the deep. Neither are we to imagine that only the sulphureous matter within the earth shall by its kindling produce so general a conflagration, (although some Philosophers of old thought that sufficient for so great an effect) but as it was in the deluge of water Gen. 7. 11. the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened; so shall it be in this deluge of fire, as one of the ancients calls it, not only mighty streams and rivers of Fire shall B issue of out the bowels of the earth; but the cataracts above shall discharge such abundance of thunder and lightning, wherein God will rain down fire and brimstone from Heaven, that nothing shall be able to withstand the force of it. Then the Craters breaches made in the earth by horrible earthquakes, caused by the violent eruptions of Fire, shall be wide enough to swallow up not only Cities but whole Countries too: And what shall remain of the spoils of this devouring enemy within, shall be consumed by the merciless fury of the thunder and lightning above. What will then become of all the glories of C the world which are now so much admired and courted by foolish men? What will then become of the most magnificent piles, the most curious structures, the most stately palaces, the most lasting monuments, the most pleasant gardens and the most delightful countries? they shall be all buried in one common heap of ruines, when the whole face of the earth shall be like the top of mount Aetna, nothing but rubbish, and stones, and ashes, which, unskilful travellers have at a distance mistaken for Snow. What will then become of the pride and gallantry of the vain persons, the large possessions of the great, or D the vast treasures of the rich? the more they have had of these things only the more fuel they have made for this destroying fire, which will have no respect to the honours, the greatness, or the riches of men. Nay, what will then become of 2 Pet. 3. 3, 4. the wicked and ungodly, who have scoffed at all these things, and walked after their own lusts, saying, where is this promise of his coming, because all things yet continue as they were from the beginning of the creation? When this great day of his wrath is come, how shall they be able to stand or escape his sury? Will they flie to the tops of the mountains? that E were only to stand more ready to be destroyed from Heaven. Will they hide themselves in the dens and the rocks of the mountains? but there they fall into the burning furnaces of the earth; and the mountains may fall upon them but can never [Page]hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Will they go down A into the deep and convey themselves to the uttermost parts of the Sea? but even there the storms and tempests of these shours of fire shall overtake them; and the vengeance of God shall pursue them to everlasting flames.

Consider now whether so dreadful a preparation for Christs coming to judgement be not one great reason why it should be called the terror of the Lord? For can any thing be imagined more full of horror and amazement than to see the whole world in a flame about us? We may remember (and I hope we yet do so) when the flames of one City filled the minds of B all the beholders with astonishment and fear: but what then would it do, not only to see the earth vomit and cast forth fire every where about us; and the Sea to boyl and swell and froth like water in a seething pot, but to hear nothing but perpetual claps of thunder, and to see no light in the Heavens, but what the flashings of lightning give? Could we imagine our selves at a convenient distance to behold the eruption of a burning mountain, such as Aetna and Vesuvius are, when the earth about it trembles and groans, the Sea foams and rages, and the bowels of the mountain roar through impatience of casting forth C its burden, and at last gives it self ease by sending up a mixture of flames, and ashes, and smoak, and a flood of fire, spreading far and destroying where ever it runs; yet even this, though it be very apt to put men in apprehensions and fears of this great day, falls very far short of the terror of it. Could we yet farther suppose that at the same time we could see fire and brimstone raining from Heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah, the earth opening to devour Corah and his company, Belshazzar trembling at the hand writing against the wall, and the Jews destroying themselves in the fire of their Temple and City, this D may somewhat higher advance our imaginations of the horror of the worlds conflagration, but yet we cannot reach the greatness of it: in as much as the Heavens and the earth which are now, are kept in store saith the Apostle 2 Pet. 3. 7. reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men; even those heavens whole beauty, and order, and motion, and influence we now admire; and that earth whose fruitful womb and richly adorned surface affords all the conveniencies of the life of man, must either be destroyed or at least purged and refined by this last and dreadful Fire. The expressions of which E in Scripture being so frequent, so particular, so plain in Writers not affecting the [...]ofty Prophetical stile, wherein fire is often used only to express the wrath of God, make it evident, that their meaning is not barely that the world shall be [Page] destroyed by the anger of God, but that this destruction shall A be by real fire, which adds more to the sensible terror of it, to all that shall behold it.

2. The terror of Christs appearance in that day. The design of the Scripture in setting forth the coming of Christ to judgement is to represent it in such a manner to us as is most apt to strike us with awe and terror at the apprehension of it. Now the greatest appearance of Majesty among men is, either when a mighty Prince marches triumphantly in the midst of a Royal Army, with all the splendor of a Court and the discipline of a Camp, having his greatest attendants about him, B and sending his Officers before him, who with the sound of Trumpets give notice of his approach, and is every where received with the shouts and acclamations of the people: or else, of a Prince, sitting upon his throne of Majesty set forth with all the Ornaments of State and Greatness, with all his Nobles and Courties standing about his Throne, and in his own Person calling Malefactors to account; and both these ways the appearance of Christ upon his second coming is represented to us: first Matth. 24. 25. as coming in the clouds of Heaven, i. e. riding triumphantly (as it were upon a Chariot) on a body of C light brighter than the Sun, having 2 Thes. 1. 7. all the Heavenly host attending upon him, and therefore he is said Matth. 24. 31. to come with power and great glory; and sending his Angels with a great sound of a trumpet before him; 1 Thes. 4. 16 after whom the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel and with the trump of God. Not as though we were to imagine any material trumpet, as some have grossly done, whose sound could reach over the whole earth; but the sound of the last trumpet seems to be the same with John 5. 25. the voice of the Son of God, which the dead are said to D hear and live; i. e. it shall be an effectual power for raising the dead; which may be therefore called the sound of a trumpet, because it supplies the use of one in calling all people together, and doth more lively represent to our capacities the Majesty of Christs appearance with all the Heavenly host of Angels and Saints. Thus when God appeared upon Mount Sinai with his Holy Angels about him, we there read Psal. 68. 17. Exod. 20. 18. of the noise of the trumpet: and when God shewed his glorious presence in the temple, he is said Psal. 47. 5. to go up with a shout and the Lord with the sound of a trumpet: and when he sets himself E against his enemies, God himself is said Zach 9. 14. to blow the trumpet, and to go with the whirlwinds of the South. But besides this, we find Christ upon his second coming described as Matth. 25. 31. sitting on the throne of his glory, and all the Holy Angels[Page]about him, and all nations gathered before him to receive A their sentence from him. His throne is said to be great and white, i. e. most magnificent and glorious, and to make it the Rev. 20. 11. more dreadful; Chap. 4. 5. from it are said to proceed lightnings and thundrings and voices; and so terrible is the Majesty of him that sits upon the throne Rev. 20. 11. that the Heaven and earth are said to flie away from his face; but the dead small and great are to stand before him and to be judged according to their works. And if the appearance of a common Judge be so dreadful to a guilty prisoner, if the Majesty of an earthly Prince begets an awe and reverence where there is no fear of B punishment, what may we then imagine when Justice and Majesty both meet in the person of the Judge, and fear and guilt in the Conscience of Offenders? Therefore it is said, Rev. 1. 7. behold he cometh with clouds and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreas of the earth shall wail because of him. We find the best of men in Scripture seized on with a very unusual consternation at any extraordinary divine appearance: The sight upon Mount Sinai was so terrible even to Moses Heb. 12. 21. that he did exceedingly fear and quake: the vision which Isaiah had of the glory of C God made him cry out, Isai, 6. 5. Wo is me for I am un [...]one, for mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts: When Daniel saw his vision, all his strength and vigor was gone, and though an Angel raised him from the ground, yet he saith of himself Dan. 10. 8, 11. that he stood trembling. If these whom God appeared o in a way of kindness were so possessed with fear, what horror must needs seize upon the minds of the wicked when 2 Thes. 1. 7, 8. the Lord Iesus shall be revealed from Heaven in flaming fire on purpose to take vengeance upon them? If in the days of his flesh there appeared so much Majesty in his Countenance, D that when the Officers came to apprehend him, John. 18. 6. they went backward and fell to the ground; how unconceivably greater must it be when his design shall be to manifest that Glory to the world which he then concealed from it? If in the short time of his transfiguration on the Holy Mount, his own Disciples were so far from being able to behold the glory of his presence, that Matth. 17. 2. 6. Mark 9. 6. they fell on their faces and were sore afraid; how shall his enemies abide the day of his wrath, or how can they stand when he shall appear in the full glory of his Majesty and Power? E

3. The terror of the proceedings upon that day: for then we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, not for any ostentation of his greatness and power before the whole world, but that every one may receive according to the things [Page]done in his body, whether it be good or bad. How full of A terror will the proceedings of that day be, wherein all secrets shall be disclosed, all actions examined and all persons judged? That will be (a) the day of the Revelation of the righteous (b) Rom. 2. 5. judgement of God; this is the time of darkness and therefore of disputes and quarrels; but then the wisdom and justice of divine providence shall be made manifest to all, for every one shall receive according to his works: and none will wonder at the sentence when they have seen the evidence. Then the most secret impurities, the most subtile hypocrisie, the most artificial fraud, and the most dissembled malice shall be laid B open to publick view. For then 1 Cor. 4. 5. God will bring to hight the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. Then all the intrigues of lust and ambition so much the talk and business of this world, will be nothing but mens shame and reproach in the next. With what horror will they then behold all the sins of their lives set in order before them, when they seemed in this life, next to the committing them, to design as much as may be to forget them? Happy men! if their Consciences were like their Table Books, that they could blot out and put in what they pleased themselves: C then all the black Catalogue of their sins would be presently expunged, and they would have nothing to be seen there, but the Characters of what at least seemed to be good. For though men be never so vicious they neither care that others should think so of them, nor they of themselves: of all things they do not love to dispute where they cannot answer, and that is their case in all their retorts of Conscience upon them. They know there is no drolling with so sowre a piece, as that within them is, for that makes the smartest and most cutting repartees; which are uneasie to bear, but impossible to answer. D Therefore they study their own quiet, by seeking to keep that silent; and since they never hope to make Conscience dumb, they would have it sleep as much as may be: and although the starts it sometimes makes, shew that the most sleepy sinners have some troublesom dreams, yet if it doth not throughly awake in this world, it will do it with a vengeance in another. Then there will be no Musick and Dancing which can cure the biting of this Tarantula within; no Opium of stupidity or Atheism will be able to give one minutes rest. How will men then curse themselves for their own folly in being so easily tempted; E and all those who laid traps and snares to betray them by? what different apprehensions of sin will they have then, from what they have now, while they are beset with temptations to it? O, will a forsaken sinner then say, had I ever believed as I [Page] ought to have done, that this would have been the fruit of a A sinful life, I should have taken more care to prevent this misery than I have done! But O the solly of intemperance, the mischief of ambition, the rage of lust, the unfatiableness of covetousness, the madness of debauchery, and the dulness of Atheism, what have ye now brought me to, with all your pleasures and promises and flatteries while I lost my soul in your service! O that I had time, to grow wise, again; and once more to try whether I could withstand the cheats and witchcraft of a deceitful world! Now all my sins are as fresh before me, as if committed yesterday, and their burden is heavier than the B weight of mountains however light I made of them then; I need no judge to condemn me but my own conscience; O that I could as easily see an end of my misery, as I do that I have deserved that there should be none. Thus shall the book of conscience be opened at that day in the heart of every impenitent sinner, wherein like Ezekiels roul he finds written within and without, Ezek. 2. 10. lamentation and mourning and Woe. Yet this will not be the only terrour in the proceedings of that day, that all the sins that ever wicked men committed will be set in order before them with their several circumstances and C aggravations, although the remembrance of them cannot be without extreme horrour and amazement; but that they must undergo a strict and severe examination of all their actions by a most powerful, holy and just Judge. And if it be so troublesom a thing to them in this world to go down into themselves, or to call to remembrance their own wicked actions which they have loved and delighted in; what will it be when they must all be brought forth before the judgement seat of Christ who hates and abhorrs them? If men can so hardly endure to have the deformity of their vices represented to D them though very imperfectly here, how will they bear the dissecting and laying them open in the view of the whole world? When the smallest fibres and the most subtile threads in our hearts shall be curiously examined, and the influence they have had upon our actions fully discovered. When sins that have been dispised for their littleness, or unregarded for their frequency, or laughed at as no sins at all, shall appear to have had a greater venom in them, than men would imagine. What shall they think then of their great and presumptuous sins; whereby they have not only offered violence to God and E his Laws, but to the dictates of their own consciences in committing them? Never think that length of time will abate the severity of the enquiry, or lessen the displeasure of God against thee for them. Remember the case of Amalek, how God [Page] dealt with that people in this world for a sin committed 400. A years before, and think then whether God be not in earnest, when he tells us how much he hates sin; and how severe he will be in the punishment of it? I remember saith God Sam. 15. 2, 3. what Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but sl [...]y both man and woman, infant and suckling, &c. What? a whole na [...]ion to be destroyed for one sin, and for a sin they thought to be none at all who committed it, and for a sin at so great a distance of time from the commission of it? But B I forbear. I know not whether there be such another instance of Gods severity in Scripture, but it is such as may justly make us cry out with the P [...]almist, Psal. 103. 3. If thou Lord shouldst thus mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand? But although God in this world so seldom shews his severity, and tempers it with so much kindness, we have no reason to expect he should do so in another. For here he hath declared that James 2. 13. mercy rejoyceth against judgement. This being the time Rom. 2. 4. 2 Pet. 3. 9. of Gods patience and forbearance and goodness towards sinners, being not willing that any should perish but that all should come to C repentance; but if men will despise the riches of his goodness, if they wil still abuse his patience, if they will trample under foot the means of their own salvation, then they shall to their unspeakable sorrow find, that there is a day of wrath to come, wherein their own dreadfull experience will tell them, Heb. 10. 31. that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For that will be a day of Justice without mercy, a day of vengeance without pity, a day of execution without any further patience. Then no vain excuses will be taken, whereby men seek to palliate their sins and give ease to their minds now. D It will be to no purpose to charge thy wilful sins upon the infirmity of thy nature, the power of temptation, the subtility of the Devil, the allurement of company, the common practice of the world, the corruption of the age, the badness of education, the fol [...]y of youth; all these and such like excuses will be too weak to be made then, when it shall appear to thy eternal confusion, that thy own vicious inclination swayed thee beyond them all. Then there will be as little place for intreaties, as for vain excuses; God shews his great pity and indulgence to mankind now, that he is so ready to hear the E prayers and grant the desires of all penitent sinners; but for those who stop their ears to all his instructions, and will not not hearken to the reproofs of his word or the rebukes of their own consciences, but contemn all sober Counsels and scoffe [Page] at Religion; what can they expect from him, but that Prov. 1. 25, 26 27. when A they shall call upon him he will not answer, and when they seek him earnestly they shall not find him; but he will laugh at their calamity and mock when their fear cometh. O blessed Jesus! didst thou weep over an incorrigible people in the days of thy flesh, Luke 19. 41. and wilt thou laugh at their miseries when thou comest to judge the world? didst thou shed thy precious blood to save them, and wilt thou mock at their destruction? didst thou woo and intreat and beseech sinners to be reconciled and wilt thou not hear them when in the anguish of their souls, they cry unto thee? See then the mighty difference between B Christs coming as a Saviour and as a Judge, between the day of our salvation and the day of his wrath, between the joy in Heaven at the conversion of penitent sinners, and at the confusion of the impenitent and unreclaimable. How terrible is the representation of Gods wrath in the style of the Prophets, when he punisheth a people in this world for their sins? It is called Isa. 13. 9, 34, 9. the day of the Lord cruel with wrath and fierce anger: the day of the Lords vengeance Malach. 4. 5. Joel. 2. 31. the great and dreadful day of the Lord. If it were thus, when his wrath was kindled but a little, when mercy was mixed with his severity, C what will it be, when he shall stir up all his wrath, and the heavens and the earth shall shake that never did offend him, what shall they then do that shall to their sorrow know how much they have displeased him? Then neither power, nor wit, nor eloquence, nor craft shall stand men in any stead; for the great Judge of that day can neither be over-awed by power, nor over-reached by wit, nor moved by eloquence, nor betrayed by craft, but every man shall receive according to his deeds. The mighty disturbers of mankind, who have been called Conquerours, shall not then be attended with their great armies, D but must stand alone to receive their sentence: the greatest wits of the world will then find that a sincere honest heart will avail them more than the deepest reach or the greatest subtilty; the most eloquent persons without true goodness will be like the man in the parable without the wedding garment, speechless; the most crafty and politick, will then Mat. [...] 22. 12. see, that though they may deceive men and themselves too, yet God will not be mocked, for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he reap; and they who have spread snares for others and been hugely pleased to see them caught by them, E shall then be convinced that they have laid the greatest of all for themselves, for Psal. 9. 16. 1 7. God will then be fully known by the judgement which he shall execute and the wicked shall be snared in the work of their own hands: for, the[Page]wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that forget A God.

4. The terror of the sentence, which shall then be passed. The Judge himself hath told us before hand what it shall be, to make us more apprehensive of it in this State, wherein we are capable to prevent it by sincere repentance and a holy life. The tenour of it is expressed in those dreadful words, Mat. 25. depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels. It is impossible to conceive words fuller of horrour and amazement than those are, to such as duly consider the importance of them. It is true B indeed wicked men in this world are so little apprehensive of the misery of departing from God, that they are ready to bid God depart from them, and place no mean part of their felicity in keeping themselves at a distance from him. The true reason of which is, that while they pursue their lusts, the thoughts of God are disquieting to them; as no man that robs his neighbour loves to think of the Judge while he does it, not as though his condition were securer by it, but when men are not wise enough to prevent a danger, they are so great fools to count in their wisdom not to think of it. But therein lies a C great part of the misery of another world, that men shall not be able to cheat and abuse themselves with false notions, and shews of happiness. The clouds they have embraced for Deities shall then vanish into smoke; all the satisfaction they ever imagined in their lusts shall be wholly gone, and nothing but the sad remembrance of them, lest behind to torment them. All the Philosophy in the world will never make men understand their true happiness so much, as one hours experience of another State will do: all men shall know better, but some shall be more happy and others more miserable by it. The righteous shall not D only see God, but know what the seeing of God means, and that the greatest happiness we are capable of is implyed therein; and the wicked shall not only be bid to depart from him, but shall then find that the highest misery imaginable is comprehended in it. It is a great instance of the weakness of our capacities here, that our discourses concerning the happiness and misery of a future life, are like, those of Children about affairs of State, which they represent to themselves in a way agreeable to their own Childish fancies; thence the Poctical dreams of Elysian fields, and turning wheels and rouling stones and such E like imaginations. Nay, the Scripture it self sets forth the joys and torments of another world in a way more suited to our fancy than our understanding; thence we read of sitting down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to represent the happiness [Page] of that State, and of a gnawing worm, and a devouring fire A and blackness of darkness to set forth the misery of it But as the happiness of heaven doth infinitely exceed the most lofty metaphors of Scripture, so doth the misery of hell the most dreadful representation that can be made of it. Although a worm gnawing our entrails, and a fi [...]e consuming our outward parts be very sensible and moving metaphors yet they cannot fully express the anguish and torment of the soul, which must be so much greater, as it is more active and sensible, than our bodies can be. Take a man that afflicts himself under the sense of some intolerable disgrace, or calamity befallen him; B or that is oppressed with the guilt of some horrid wickedness, or sunk into the depth of despair; the Agonies and torments of his mind may make us apprehend the nature of that misery, although he falls short of the degrees of it. And were this misery to be of no long continuance, yet the terror of it must needs be great; but when the worm shall never dye, and the fire shall never be quenched, when insupportable misery shall be everlasting, nothing can then be added to the terrour of it: and this is as plainly contained in the sentence of wicked men, as any thing else is. But here men think they may justly C plead with God and talk with him of his judgements; what proportion, say they, is there, between the sins of this short life and the eternal misery of another? which objection is not so great in it self as it appears to be by the weak answers▪ which have been made to it; When to assign a proportion, they have made a strange kind of infinity in sin either from the object, which unavoidably makes all sins equal, or from the wish of a sinner that he might have an eternity to sin in, which is to make the justice of Gods punishments to be not according to their works, but to their wishes; But we need not strain things D so much beyond what they will bear to vindicate Gods justice in this matter. Is it not thought just and reasonable among men, for a man to be confined to perpetual imprisonment for a fault he was not half an hour in committing? Nay do not all the Laws of the world make death the punishment of some crimes, which may be very suddenly done? And what is death, but the eternal depriving a man of all the comforts of life? And shall a thing then so constantly practised and universally justified in the world, be thought unreasonable when it is applyed to God? It is true, may some say if annihilation were E all that was meant by eternal death, there could be no exception against it: but I ask, whether it would be unjust for the Laws of men to take away the lives of offenders in case their souls [...]urvive their bodies, and they be for ever sensible of the [Page] loss of life? if not, why shall not God preserve the honour A of his Laws, and vindicate his Authority in governing the world, by sentencing obstinate sinners to the greatest misery, though their souls live for ever in the apprehension of it? Especially since God hath declared these things so evidently before hand, and made them part of his Laws, and set everlasting life on the other side to ballance everlasting misery, and proposed them to a sinners choice in such a manner, that nothing but contempt of God and his grace, and wilful impenitency can ever betray men into this dreadful State of eternal destruction. B

2. Thus much for the argument used by the Apostle, the terrour of the Lord; I now come to the assurance he expresseth of the truth of it; Knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord we perswade men. We have two ways of proving Articles of faith, such as this concerning Christs coming to judgement is,

1. By shewing, that there is nothing unreasonable in the belief of them.

2. That there is sufficient evidence of the truth and certainty of them.

In the former of these it is of excellent use to produce the C common apprehensions of mankind as to a future judgement, and the several arguments insisted on to that purpose; for if this were an unreasonable thing to believe, how come men without revelation to agree about it as a thing very just and reasonable? If the conflagration of the world were an impossible thing, how came it to be so anciently received by the eldest and wisest Philosophers? How came it to be maintained by those two Sects which were St. Paul's enemies, when he preached at Athens, and always enemies to each other, the Act. 17. 18. Epicureans and the Stoicks? It is true they made these conflagrations D to be periodical and not final: but we do not establish the belief of our doctrine upon their assertion, but from thence shew that is a most unreasonable thing to reject that as impossible to be done, which they assert hath been and may be often done. But for the truth and certainty of our doctrine, we build that upon no less a foundation than the word of God himself. We may think a judgement to come reasonable in general upon the [...]sideration of the goodness and wisdom and justice of God; but all that depends upon this supposition, that God doth govern the world by Laws and not by Power, E but since God himself hath declared it who is the Suprem Judge of the world, Eccles 12. 14. that he will bring every work into judgement whether it be good or evil, since the Son of God made this so great a part of his doctrine with all the circumstances [Page] of his own coming for again this end; since he opened the A commission he received from the Father for this purpose when he was upon earth, by declaring that John 5. 22, 28, 29. the Father had committed▪ all judgement to the Son, and that the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. Since this was so great a part of the Apostles doctrine to preach of this judgement to come, and Act. 17. 31. that God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, B whereof he hath given assurance to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead: No wonder the Apostle speaks here with so great assurance of it, knowing therefore, &c. And no persons can have the least ground to question it, but such who wholly reject the Christian doctrine, upon the pretences of infidelity, which are so vain and trifling, that, were not their lusts stronger than their arguments men of wit would be ashamed to produce them; and did not mens passions oversway their judgements it would be too much honour to them to confute them. But every Sermon is not intended for the C conversion of Turks and Infidels, my design is to speak to those who acknowledge themselves to be Christians and to believe the truth of this doctrine upon the Authority of those divine persons who were particularly sent by God to reveal it to the world. And so I come to the last particular, by way of application of the former, viz.

3. The efficacy of this argument for the perswading men to a reformation of heart and life; knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade men. For as another Apostle reasons from the same argument. 2 Pet. 3. 11. Seeing all these things shall be dissolved D what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness? There is great variety of arguments in the Christian Religion to perswade men to holiness, but none more sensible and moving to the generality of mankind than this. Especially considering these two things.

1. That if this argument doth not perswade men, there is no reason to expect any other should.

2. That the condition of such persons is desperate, who cannot by any arguments be perswaded to leave off their sins.

1. There is no reason to expect any other argument should E perswade men if this of the terror of the Lord do it not. If an almighty power cannot awaken us, if infinite justice cannot affright us, if a judgement to come cannot make us tremble, and eternal misery leave no impression upon us, what other arguments [Page] or methods can we imagine would reclaim us from our A sins? We have been too sad an instance our selves, of the ineffectualness of other means of amendment by the mercies and judgements of this present life: have ever any people had a greater mixture of both these, than we have had in the compass of a few years? If the wisest persons in the world had been to have set down beforehand the method of reforming a sinful nation, they could have pitched upon none more effectual than what we have shewed not to be so. First they would have imagined, that after enduring many miseries and hardships, when they were almost quite sunk under dispair, if God should B give them a sudden and unexpected deliverance, meer ingenuity and thankfulness would make them afrid to displease a God of so much kindness. But if so great a flash of joy and prosperity instead of that should make them grow wanton and extravagant, what a course then so likely to reclaim them, as a series of smart and severe judgements one upon another, which might sufficiently warn yet not totally destroy. These we have had experience of, and of worse than all these, viz. that we are not amended by them. For are the Laws of God less broken, or the duties of Religion less contemned and despised C after all these? What vices have been forsaken, what lusts have men been reclaimed from, nay what one sort of sin hath been less in fashion than before? Nay have not their number as well as their aggravation, increased among us? Is our zeal for our established Religion greater? Is our faith more firm and setled, our devotion more constant, our Church less in danger of either of the opposite factions than ever it was? Nay is it not rather like a neck of land between two rough and boysterous seas, which rise and swell, and by the breaches they make in upon us, threaten an inundation? By all which we see what D necessity there is that God should govern this world by the considerations of another; that when neither judgements nor mercies can make men better in this life; judgement without mercy should be their portion in another. O the infatuating power of sin! when neither the pity of an indulgent Father, nor the frowns of a severe Judge can draw us from it: when neither the bitter passion of the Son of God for our sins, nor his threatning to come again to take vengeance upon us for them, can make us hate and abhorr them: when neither the shame nor contempt, the diseases and reproaches which follow sin in this E world; nor the intollerable anguish and misery of another can make men sensible of the folly of them so as to forsake them. Could we but represent to our minds that State wherein we must all shortly be, when the bustle and hurry, the pleasures [Page] and diversions, the courtships and entertainments of this world A shall be quite at an end with us, and every one must give an account of himself to God; what another opinion of these things should we have in our minds, with what abhorrency should we look upon every temptation to sin, how should we loath the sight of those who either betrayed us into sin or flattered us when we had committed it? Could men but ask themselves that reasonable question, why they will defie God by violating his known Laws, unless they be sure he either cannot or will not punish them for it? thy would be more afraid of doing it than they are, for supposing both, to do it, is perfect madness: B to question his power who is Almighty, or his will who hath declared it and is immutable is the height of folly.

2. The condition of such is desperate whom no arguments can perswade to leave their sins. For there can be no breaking prison in that other State, no escaping tryal, no corrupting the Judge, no reversing the sentence, no pardon after judgement, no reprieve from punishment, no abatement or end of misery. How canst thou then hope O impenitent sinner, either to fly from or to endure that wrath of God that is coming swiftly upon thee to arrest thee by death, and convey thee to C thy tormenting prison? canst thou hope, that God will discharge thee before that dreadful day comes, when he hath confined thee thither in order to it? Canst thou hope that day will never come which the vindication of Gods justice, the honour of Christ, the happiness of the blessed, as well as the punishment of the wicked make so necessary that it should come? or canst thou hope, to defend thy self, against an all seeing eye, a most righteous Judge and an accusing conscience when that day doth come? when all the mercies thou hast abused, the judgements thou hast slighted, the motions of grace thou D hast resisted, the checks of conscience thou hast stifled, and the sins of all kinds thou hast committed, shall rise up in judgement to condemn thee? O that we had all the wisdom to consider of these things in time, that the terror of the Lord may perswade us to break off all our sins by a sincere repentance, and to live so that we may dye with comfort, and be for ever with the Lord in his eternal Joy. E

SERMON XII. Ser. XII. A Preached at B WHITE HALL. FEBRUARY 18. 1672.

[Page]

MATTHEW XVI. XXVI. C

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall he give in exchange for his soul?

IF we look into the twenty fourth verse of this Chapter we shall find our Saviour there, laying down such hard conditions of mens being his Disciples, as were, to all D appearance, more likely to have driven away those which he had already, than to have drawn any others after him: For he requires no less than the greatest readiness to suffer for his sake, and that to no meaner a degree than the loss of what is most precious to men in this world, in their lives; which is implyed in those words; If any man will come after me let him deny himself, and take up his Cross and follow me. If our Saviour had only designed to have made himself great by the number of his followers, if he had intended a Kingdom in this world, as the E Jews imagined, he would have made more easie conditions of being his Disciples; He would have chosen another way to have attained his end, and made use of more pleasing and popular arguments to have perswaded the people to follow him. [Page] When the Eastern Impostor afterwards began to set up for a new A Religion, he took a method as contrary to our Saviours as his Religion and design was: he knew the Greatness and Honour, the pleasures and the pomp of this world, were the things most passionately loved and admired by the generality of mankind; and therefore he fitted his Religion to the natural inclinations of men, and proposed such means of advancing it as were most like to make men great by undertaking them. And men are never so willing to be cheated by any Religion, as that which complies with their present interests and gratifies their sensual inclinations. In this case there need not many arguments B to court persons to embrace that which they were so strongly inclined to before; and the very name of Religion does them great service when it allows what they most desire, and makes them sin with a quiet Conscience.

But that is the peculiar honor of Christianity, that as it can never be suspected to be a design for this world, so it hath risen and spread it self by ways directly contrary to the Splendor and Greatness of it: For it overcame by sufferings, increased by persecutions, and prevailed in the world by the patience and self-denial of its followers. He that was the first Preacher of C it, was the greatest example of suffering himself; and he bids his Disciples not to think much of following their Lord and Saviour though it were to take up the Cross and lay down their lives for his sake. We may easily imagine how much startled and surprized his Disciples were at such discourses as these, who being possessed with the common opinion of the temporal Kingdom of the Messias, came to him with great expectations of honour and advancement by him; and no less would content some of them, than being his highest Favourites and Ministers of State suting at his right hand, and at his left D hand in his Kingdom: they had already in their imaginations shared the preferments and dignities of his Kingdom among themselves; and were often contending about preheminence, who should be the greatest among them. Insomuch, that when Christ now, the time of his suffering approaching, began more plainly to discourse to them of his own sufferings at Hierusalem, v. 21. St. Peter, either out of his natural forforwardness and heat, or being elevated by the good opinion which our Lord had expressed of him before v. 17. takes upon him very solemnly to rebuke him for ever thinking to submit E himself to so mean a condition; Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee, v. 22. upon which, Jesus not only reproves Peter with great smartness and severity, as savoring more of the pomp and ease of the world, than of the nature [Page] and design of his Kingdom; v. 23. but takes this occasion A to tell his Disciples, that they must no longer dream of the Glories and Splendor of this world, nor entertain themselves with vain Fancies of the Pleasures and contentments of this life; but if they would shew themselves to be truly his Disciples they must prepare for persecutions and Martyrdoms, they must value their Religion above their lives; for the time was now coming on, they must part with one or the other; and if they were not prepared beforehand by self-denial and taking up the Cross, they would run great hazard of losing their souls for the love of this world: and therefore our Saviour B shews,

1. The great advantage that would accrue to them; if they were willing to suffer for his sake. Whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it, v. 25. i. e. instead of this short and uncertain life, which would spend it self in a little time, he should have one infinitely more valuable; and therefore no exchange could be better made, than that of laying down such a life as this for one of eternal Happiness and Glory; for so our Saviour elsewhere explains it he that hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal, St. John 12. 25. C

2. The great folly of losing this eternal state of happiness for the preservation of this present life, or the enjoyment of the things of this world: which he first lays down as a certain truth, v. 25. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and then discovers the folly of it in the words of the text, by comparing such a mans gain and his loss together, supposing he should obtain the utmost that can be hoped for in this world. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? D

Wherein we may consider these three particulars;

1. The possibility supposed of losing the soul; though a man should gain the whole world.

2. The hazard implied of the loss of the soul for the sake of the gain of the world.

3. The folly expressed of losing the soul, though it be for the gain of the whole world.

1. The possibility supposed of the loss of the soul in another world; For the force of our Saviours argument depends wholly on the supposition of the certainty of the souls Being E in another state; and its capacity of happiness or misery therein. For, setting that aside there can be no argument strong enough to perswade any man to part not only with what he hath or hopes for in this life, but with life it self. He that is [Page] so great a Fool to be an Athiest, would yet be much more so A to be a Martyr for his opinion. What is there could recompence the loss of life, to a man that believes that there is nothing after it? But supposing there should be a life to come, as it is impossible to give any demonstration to the contrary, what madness would it be, for a man to run himself into the miseries of another world with a design to prove there is none? If all that our Saviour had meant, were only to represent the folly of a person, that would lay down his life for the purchase of an estate, (for so the soul is often taken for the life) that would not have reached the scope and design of his discourse. B And no instances can be produced of such a kind of folly, which would be as great as for a man to lose his head for a wager, or to purchase the lease of his life by destroying himself. But supposing this to be a Proverbial speech, yet the folly of losing a mans life for the gain of the whole world is not brought in by our Saviour meerly for it self: but as it doth much more represent the unspeakable folly of such who for the love of this world will venture the loss of an eternal endearing life, and all the misery which is consequent upon it. If that man would gain nothing by his bargains but the reputation of a Fool, that C for the possession of the whole world for one moment, would be content to be killed in the next; how much greater folly are they guilty of, that for the sake of this world and the p [...]eservation of their lives here, expose themselves to all the miseries of another life, which God hath threatned or their souls can undergo? It is such a loss of the soul which is here spo ken of, as is consistent with the preservation of this present life; for whosoever saith Christ, will save his life shall lose it; and to those words before, these of the text have a particular reference, and therefore must be understood not of losing this D life, but of the loss of the Soul in a future state.

And this loss cannot be understood of the souls annihilation or ceasing to be, as soon as the life is gone; for that being supposed, he would be the happiest man that had the most of this world at his command and enjoyed the greatest pleasure in it. So St. Paul himself determines, that if there were no future state, the Epicureans argument would take place, 1 Cor 15. 32. Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die: and he reckons those among the most miserable of all mankind who ventured the loss of all that is accounted desirable in this world and of their E lives too; if there were not a better life to come. 1 Cor 15. 19. For if in this life only we have hope in Christ, saith he, we are of all men the most miserable. So that the strength of our Saviours discourse depends upon the supposition of the immortality [Page] of the soul; and its capacity of being happy or miserable in A a future state.

And it is the great commendation of the Christian Religion, that the particular duties required in it are established on the same Foundations that natural Religion is, which are the belief of a Deity and the immortality of the Soul. Heb. 11. 6. For he that comes unto God must believe that he it, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; which being spoken with a respect to one who for being good was translated out of this world, must refer to the rewards of a future life. And we desire no more than these common principles of Religion to make B the most difficult duties of Christianity appear reasonable to mankind. For it is upon the account of this future state of the soul, that it is our most just and necessary care to look after the welfare of our souls in the first place, to seek the Kingdom of God the and righteousness thereof, before the concernments of this present life, because a state that endures for ever ought to be preferred before a short and uncertain abode in this world. It is this, which makes it reasonable to please God, though to the displeasing our selves and the crossing our natural inclinations; because eternal happiness and misery depends upon C his favor or displeasure. It is this, which obliges men to the greatest care of their actions, because their future state in another world, will be according to their lives here, for every man shall then receive according to his works. It is this, which ought to keep men from all fleshly lusts, not meerly because they are inconvenient for their bodies, but because they war against their souls. It is this, which makes the love of this world so dangerous a thing, because it draws away the hearts and affections of men from things that are above and fixes them upon things below. It is this, which makes it necessary for D us to subdue our passions, to conquer temptations, to forgive injuries, to be patient under afflictions, and to lay down our lives for Religion, because there will be a reward for the righteous and the happiness of another state will make abundant recompence for all the difficulties of this.

So that in the Gospel the doctrine of the souls immortality is not spoken of as the nice speculation of subtile and contemplative men; nor meerly supposed as a foundation of all Religion, but it is interwoven in the substance of it, and adds strength to all its parts. For herein we find the immortality E of the soul not barely asserted, nor proved by uncertain arguments, nor depending on the opinion of Philosophers; but delivered with the greatest authority, revealed with the clearest light, and confirmed by the strongest evidence. If any one [Page] can make known to mankind the state of souls in another A world it must be God himsēlf; if ever it was made known plainly by him it must be in the Gospel, whereby 2 Tim. 1. 10. life and immortality are brought to light; if ever any arguments were proper to convince mankind of it, they are such as are contained therein. For it is not barely the resurrection of our Lord, which is a manifest evidence of the truth of the souls subsisting after a real death; but the whole design of his doctrine and the Christian Religion is built upon it. So that if we suppose the immortality of the soul the Christian Religion appears more reasonable by it; but if we suppose the doctrine B of Christ to be true there can be no doubt left of the immortality of the soul; and whatever arguments we have to prove the truth of this doctrine by, the same do of necessity prove the certainty of the souls immortality.

I confess many subtile arguments have been used by those who never knew any thing of divine revelation to prove the soul to be of such a nature, that it was not capable of dying with the body; and some of them such as none of their Adversaries were ever able to answer. For the most common acts of sense are unaccountable in a meer Mechanical way; and after all C the attemps of the most witty and industrious men I despair of ever seeing the powers of meer matter raised to a capacity of performing the lowest acts of perception; and much more of those nobler faculties of memory, understanding and will. But although the arguments from hence are sufficient to justifie the belief of the souls immortality to all considering men; yet the far greatest part of mankind was never so; and a matter of so great consequence as this is, ought to be proposed in the most plain, most certain, and most effectual manner.

While these disputes were managed among the Philosophers D of old, though those who asserted the immortality of the soul had the better reason of their side; yet their Adversaries spake with greater confidence; and that always bears the greatest sway among injudicious people. And some men are always fond of a reputation for wit by opposing common opinions though never so true and useful: especially when they serve a bad end in it and do thereby plead for their own impieties. But it cannot be denied, that those who were in the right did likewise give too great advantage to their enemies, partly by their own diffidence and distrust of what they had E contended for, partly from the too great niceness and subtilty of their arguments, partly from the ridiculous fopperies which they maintained together with that of the souls immortality, as the transmigration of them into the bodies of Brutes and [Page] such like. But the main disadvantage of all to the world was, that the immortality of the soul was rather insisted on as a A Principle of Philosophy than of Religion. Some of the best of their arguments were such as made the souls of Brutes immortal as well as those of men; and those could not be imagined to have any great force on the lives of men, which would equally hold for such creatures which were not capable of rewards and punishments in another life. But therein lies the great excellency of the doctrine of the souls immortality as it is discovered in the Gospel, not only that it comes from him who best understands the nature of souls, but is delivered in such a manner as is most effectual for the reformation B of mankind. For the fullest account herein given of it is by the rewards and punishments of another life; and those not Poetically described by fictions and Romances; but delivered with the plainess of truth, the gravity of a Law, the severity of a Judge, the authority of a Lawgiver, the Majesty of a Prince, and the wisdom of a Deity. Wherein the happiness described is such as the most excellent minds think it most desireable; and the misery so great as all that consider it, must think it most intolerable. And both these are set forth C with so close a respect to the actions of this life, that every one must expect in another world, according to what he doth in this.

How is it then possible that the doctrine of the souls being in another state, could be recommended with greater advantage to mankind, than it is in the Gospel? and what is there can be imagined to take off the force of this, but the proving an absolute incapacity in the soul of subsisting after death? It is true indeed in the state of this intimate union and conjunction between the soul and body, they do suffer mutually D from each other. But if the souls suffering on the account of the body, as in diseases of the brain, be sufficient to prove there is no soul; why may not the bodies suffering on the account of the soul, as in violent passions of the mind, as well prove that there is no body? It is not enough then to prove that the soul doth in some things suffer from the body; (for so doth the Child in the Mothers womb from the distempers of its Mother, yet very capable of living when separated from her) but it must be shewed that the soul is not distinct from the body to prove it uncapable of being without it. E

But on the other side, I shall now shew that there is nothing unreasonable in what the Scripture delivers concerning the immortal state of the Souls of men, as to future rewards and punishments, because there are those things now in them considered [Page] as distinct from their bodies, which make them capable A of either of them. And those are,

1. That they are capable of pleasure and pain distinct from the body.

2. That they have power of determining their own actions.

1. That the souls of men are capable of pleasure and pain distinct from the pleasure and pain of the body. Whereever pleasure and pain may be, there must be a capacity of rewards and punishments, for a reward is nothing but the heightning of pleasure, and punishment an increase of pain; And if there be both these in men of which no account can be given from B their bodies, there must be a nobler principle within, which we call the Soul, which is both the cause and the subject of them. We may as easily imagine that a Fox should leave his prey to find out a demonstration in Euclid, or a Serpent attempt the squaring of the circle in the dust, or all the Fables of A [...]sop become real histories, and the Birds and Beasts turn Wits and Polititians, as be able to give an account of those we call pleasures of the mind from the affections of the body. The transport of joy which Archimedes was in at the finding out his desired Problem, was a more certain evidence of the real pleasures C of the mind, than the finding it was of the greatness of his wit. Could we ever think that men who understood themselves would spend so much time in lines, and numbers, and figures, and examining Problems and Demonstrations which depend upon them, if they found not a great delight and satisfaction in the doing of it? But whence doth this pleasure arise? not from seeing the figures, or meer drawing the lines, or calculating the numbers, but by deducing the just and necessary consequences of one thing from another; which would afford no more pleasure to a man without his soul, than a book D of Geometry would give to a herd of Swine. It is the Soul alone which takes pleasure in the search and finding out such Truths, which can have no kind of respect to the body; it is that, which can put the body out of order with its own pleasures, by spending so much time in contemplation as may exhaust the spirits, abate the vigor of the body and hasten its decay. And while that droops and sinks under the burden, the soul may be as vigorous and active in such a consumptive state of the body as ever it was before, the understanding as clear, the memory as strong, the entertainments of the mind as great, E as if the body were in perfect health. It is a greater and more manly pleasure, which some men take in searching into the nature of these things in the world than others can take in the most voluptuous enjoyment of them; the one can [Page] only satisfie a bruitish appetite while, it may be, something A within is very unquiet and troublesom; but the other brings a solid pleasure to the mind without any regret or disturbance from the body. By this we see, that setting aside the consideration of Religion, the mind of man is capable of such pleasures peculiar to it self, of which no account could be given, if there were not a spiritual and therefore immortal Being within us, not only distinct from the body, but very far above it. But the very capacity of Religion in mankind doth yet further evidence the truth of it. I would fain understand how men ever came to be abused B with the notion of Religion, as some men are willing to think they are, if there were not some faculties in them above those of sense and imagination? For where we find nothing else but these, we see an utter incapacity of any such thing as Religion is; in some brute creatures we find great subtilty and strange imitations of reason; but we can find nothing like Religion among them. How should it come to be otherwise among men, if imagination were the highest facultie in man; since the main principles of Religion are as remote from the power of imagination as may C be? What can be thought more repugnant to all the conceptions we take in by our senses, than the conception of a Deity and the future State of Souls is? How then come the impressions of these things to sink so deep into humane nature, that all the art and violence in the world can never take them out? The strongest impressions upon all other Beings are such as are suitable to their natures, how come those in mankind to be such as must be supposed to be not only above but contrary to them if an immortal soul be not granted? If men had no principle within them, beyond that D of sense, nothing would have been more easie, than to have shaken off the notion of a Deity and all apprehension of a future State: But this hath been so far from easie, that it is a thing utterly impossible to be done: all the wit and arts, all the malice and cruelty, all the racks and torments that could yet be thought on could not alter mens perswasions of the Christian Religion, much less raze out the Foundations of Natural Religion in the world. But what imaginable account can be given of the joys and pleasures, which the Martyrs of old expressed under the E most exquisite torments of their bodies; if their minds were not of a far nobler and diviner nature than their bodies were? Although a natural stupidity and dulness of temper may abate the sense of pain, although an obstinate resolution [Page] may keep men from complaining of it; yet, not only to A bear the Cross but to embrace it; to be not only patient but pleasant under tortures; nay, to sing with greater joy in the flames than others do when they are heated with wine, doth not only shew that there is something within us capable of pleasure distinct from the body, but that the pleasures of it may be so great as to swallow up the pains of the body. But I need not have recourse to such great and extraordinay instances; (although sufficiently attested by such who saw and heard them) for every good man hath that inward pleasure in being and doing good, which he would not part with for all the greatest Epicurism in B the world. And where there is, or may be so great pleasure, no wonder if there be likewise a sense of pain proportionable to it; witness those gripes and tortures of Conscience which wicked men undergo from the reflection upon themselves; when their own evil actions fill them with horror and amazement, when the cruelties they have used to others return with greater violence upon their own minds, when the unlawful pleasures of the body prove the greatest vexation to their souls, and the weight of their evil actions sinks them under despair and the dreadful apprehensions of future misery. These are things we C need not search histories, or cite ancient authors for; every mans own Conscience will tell him, if he hath not lost all sense of good and evil; that as there is a real pleasure in doing good, there is the greatest inward pain in doing evil. Having thus shewed that the soul of man is capable of pleasure and pain in this present state distinct from the body, it thence follows that it is capable of rewards and punishments, when it shall be separated from it.

2. That the souls of men have a power of determining their own actions; without which there could be no reasonable D account given of the rewards and punishments of another life. Were I to prove liberty in man from the supposition of Religion I know no argument more plain or more convincing than that which is drawn from the consideration of future rewards and punishments: but being now to prove a capacity of rewards and punishments from the consideration of Liberty, I must make use of other means to do it by. And what can be imagined greater evidence in Beings capable of reflecting upon themselves, than the constant sense and experience of all mankind? Not that all men are agreed in E their opinions about these things; (for even herein men shew their liberty, by resisting the clearest evidence to prove it) but that every man finds himself free in the determining his moral actions. And therefore he hath the same reason to believe this, [Page] which he hath of his own Being or understanding. For what A other way hath a man to know that he understands himself or any thing else, but the sense of his own mind? and those who go about to perswade men that they think themselves free when they are not, may in the next place perswade them that they think they understand when they do not. Nay, they might hope in the first place to perswade men out of their understandings, for we are not so competent judges of the more necessary and natural acts, for men understand whether they will or no, as of the more free and voluntary; for in this case every man can when he pleases put a tryal upon himself, and like the confuting the B arguments against motion by moving, can shew the folly of all the pleas for fatal necessity by a freedom of action. But if once this natural liberty be taken away, wisdom and folly as well as vice and vertue would be names invented to no purpose, no men can be said to be better or wiser than others, if their actions do not depend on their own choice and consideration, but on a hidden train of causes which it is no more in a mans power to hinder than in the earth to hinder the falling of rain upon it. If therefore sense and reason may prevail upon mankind, not to fancy themselves under invisible chains and fetters, of which they can C have no evidence or experience; we may thence infer the souls capacity of rewards and punishments in another life, since happiness and misery are set before them, and it must be their own voluntary choice which brings them to either of them: When either by their own folly they run themselves upon everlasting ruine, or by making use of the assistance of divine grace they become capable of endless Joy. But since men have not only a power of governing themselves, but are capable of doing it by considerations as remote from the things of sense as Heaven is from Earth; it is not conceivable there should be such a power D within us, if there were not an immortal soul which is the subject of it. For what is there that hath the shadow of liberty in meer matter? what is there of these inferiour creatures that can act by consideration of future things, but only man? Whence comes man to consider but from his reason? or to guide himself by the consideration of future and eternal things, but from an immortal principle within him; which alone can make things at a distance to be as present, can represent to it self the infinite pleasures and unconceivable misery of an eternal state in such a manner as to direct the course of this present life in order to E the obtaining of the one and avoiding of the other. And thus much concerning the supposition here made of the loss of the soul, and its immortality implied therein.

I come to consider the hazard of losing the soul for the gain of this world. F [...]r although our Saviour puts the utmost supposable [Page] case, the better to represent the folly of losing the soul for the A sake of the world; yet he doth imply the danger may be as great, although a mans ambition never comes to be so extravagant, as to aim at the possession of the whole world. The whole world can never make amends for the loss of the soul; yet the soul may be lost for a very inconsiderable part of it; although all the wealth and treasures of the Indies can never compensate to a man the loss of his life, yet that may be in as great danger of losing upon far easier terms than those are. It is not to be thought that those whom our Saviour speaks to, could ever propose such vast designs to themselves as the Empire of the whole world was; but, he tells B them, if that could be supposed, it were far more desirable to save a soul than to gain the world, yet such is the folly of mankind to lose their souls for a very small share of this present world. For the temptations of this world are so many, so great, so pleasing to mankind, and the love of life so natural and so strong, that inconsiderate men will run any hazard of their souls for the gain of one or preservation of the other. The highest instance of this kind is that which our Saviour here intends, when men will make shipwrack of faith and a good conscience to escape the danger of their lives; or with Iudas will betray their Saviour for some present C gain although very far short of that of the whole world. And if I be not much mistaken, it is upon this account, that our Saviour pronounces it so hard Matth. 19. 23, 24. Mark. 10. 24, 25. Luke 18. 24, 25. for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because in such difficult times of persecution on the account of Religion as those were; such men would be shrewdly tempted to venture the loss of their souls in another world rather than of their estates in this. For it was the young mans unwillingness to part with his great possessions to follow Christ, which gave him occasion to utter that hard saying. It is on this account St. Paul saith, 1 Tim. 6. 10. the love of money is the root of D all evil, which while some have coveted after they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows: It was on this account, 2 Tim. 4. 10. that Demas forsook Paul, having loved this present world: and that, James 4. 4. the friendship of this world is said to be enmity with God, and that our Saviour saith, Mat. 6. 24. no man can serve two Masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; else he will hold to the one and despise the other; ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Which doth suppose that these two do require two contrary things at the same time; for if a hundred Masters did all require the same E thing a man might, in doing that, be said to serve them all. But when Religion requires that we must part with all for that, and the world requires that we must part with Religion to preserve our interest in it, then it is impossible to serve God and Mammon together; for we must hold to the one and dispise the other.

[Page] But what then? Is there no danger of the loss of the soul A for the sake of this world, but only in the case of persecution? then, some may say, we hope there is no fear now of mens being too rich to go to Heaven. Thanks be to God that we live in times free from such dangerous tryals as those of persecution are, and wherein men may quietly enjoy their Estates, and the best Religion in the world together: but although there be no danger of splitting upon the rocks, there may be of sinking with being overcharged or springing too great a leak within us, whereby we let in more than we can be able to bear. And supposing the most prosperous and easie condition men can fancy to themselves here; yet the things of this B world are so great occasions of evil, so great hindrances of good, that on these accounts men always run a mighty hazard of their souls for the sake of this world. The Devil knew well enough where his greatest strength lay, when he reserved the Matth. 4. 8. 9. temptation of the glories of this world to the last place in dealing with Christ himself; when nothing else would prevail upon him, he was yet in hopes that the Greatness and Splendour of this world would bring him to his terms. And surely if the Devil had not a mighty opinion of the power of C these charms of the Kingdoms and glory of this world, he would never have put such hard terms to them which were no less than falling down and worshipping him: which we do not find he ever durst so much as mention before till he held this bait in his hand. And although our Saviour baffled him in this his strongest temptation, yet he still finds, that far less than what he here offered, will bring men in subjection to him. How small a matter of gain will tempt some men to all the sins of lying, of fraud and injustice? who pawn their souls and put them out at interest for D a very small present advantage, although they are sure in a very little time to lose both their interest and the Principal too.

How many for the sake of the Honours and preferments of this World are willing to do by their consciences as the Indian did by his letter, lay them aside till their business be done and then expect to hear no more of them! What poor and trifling things in this world, do men continually venture their souls for? As though all were clear gains which they could put off so dead a commodity as the Salvation of their Souls for. How apt are such to applaud themselves for their E own skill, when meerly by a little swearing and lying and cheating, things which cost them nothing but a few words, they can defeat the designs of their enemies and compass their own! But how low is the rate of souls fallen in the esteem of such persons as these are! If they had not been of any greater value, [Page] they had not been worth any ordinary mans, much less, the Son A of Gods laying down his life for the redemption of them. Is this all the requital men make him for the travail of his soul, the wounds of his body, the bitterness of his passion, to sq [...]ander away those souls upon any trifling advantages of this world, which he shed his most p [...]ecious blood for the redemption of [...] When ever men are tempted to sin with the hopes of gain, let them but consider how much they undervalue not only their own souls, but the eternal Son of God, and all that he hath done and suffered for the sake of the souls of men: If the [...]e had been no greater worth in our souls, silver and gold would have been a B sufficient price of redemption for them (for if men lose their souls for these things, it is a sign they set a higher value upon them) But Gods justice was not to be bribed, his wrath against sin was not to be appeased by the greatest riches of this World, nothing but the inestimable blood of Christ would be accepted for the purchase of souls; and when they are so dearly bought must they be cast away upon such trifles as the riches and honours of this world are, in comparison with them?

These are men who lose their souls upon design, but there are others so prodigal of them, that they can play and sport them C away, or lose them only because it is the custom to do so. With whom all the reasons and arguments in the world cannot prevail to leave off their sins, if it once be accounted a fashion to commit them. Yea so dangerous things are fashionable vices, that some will seem to be worse than they are, (although few continue long Hypocritical in that way) that they might not be out of the fashion, and some will be sure to follow it (if not out-do it) though to the eternal ruin of their souls. But although all damn'd persons at the great day will be confounded and ashamed, yet none will be more ridiculously miserable than such who go to D Hell for fashion sake. What a strange account would this be at the dreadful day of judgement for any to plead for themselves, that they knew that chastity, temperance, sobriety and devotion were things more pleasing to God, but it was grown a Mode to be vicious, and they had rather be damned than be out of the fashion? The most charitable opinion we can have of such persons now, is that they do not think they have any souls at all; for it is prodigious folly for men to believe they have souls that are immortal, and yet be so regardless of them.

Yet these who are vicious out of complyance are not the only E persons who shew so little care of their souls, what shall we say to those who enjoying the good things of this life, scarce ever do so much as think of another? Who are very solicitous about every little mode of attire for their bodies, and think no time long enough to be spent in the grand affairs of dressing and adorning [Page] their out sides; but from one end of the year to the other never A spend one serious thought about eternity, or the future State of their souls. Their utmost contrivances are how to pass away their days with the greatest ease and pleasure to themselves; and never consider what will become of their souls when they come to die. Alas poor immortal souls! are they become the only contemptible things men have about them? All care is little enough with some for the body, for the pampering and indulging of that, and making provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof; but any cure is thought too much for the soul; and no time passes so heavily away, as the hours of devotion do. The very shew of Religion is looked on as a burden, what then do they think of B the practice of it? The Devil himself shews a greater esteem of the souls of men, than such persons do; for he hath been always very active and industrious in seeking their ruin, but is ready enough to comply with all the inclinations of the body, or mens designs in this world; nay he makes the greatest use of these as the most powerful temptations for the ruin of their souls; by all which it is evident, that, being our greatest enemy he aims only at the ruin of that which is of greatest value and consideration, and that is the thing so much despised by wicked C men, viz. the soul. These do in effect, tell the Devil he may spare his pains in tempting them; they can do his work fast enough themselves, and destroy their own souls without any help from him. And if all men were so bent upon their own ruin, the Devil would have so little to do, that he must find out some other imployment besides that of tempting to divert himself with, unless it be the greatest diversion of all to him, to see men turned Devils to themselves. But are the temptations of this world so infatuating that no reason or consideration can bring men to any care of or regard to their souls? D we have no ground to think so, since there have been and I hope still are such, who can despise the glittering vanities, the riches and honours, the pleasures and delights of this world when they stand in competition with the eternal happiness of their souls in a better world. And that not out of a sullen humour or a morose temper, or a discontented mind; but from the most prudent weighing and ballancing the gain of this world and the loss of the soul together. For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, or what shall he give in exchange for his soul? E

3. Which is the last particular, to represent the folly of losing the soul, though it were for the gain of the whole world. Which will appear by comparing the gain and the loss with each other in these 4. things.

1. The gain here proposed is at the best but possible to one; [Page] but the hazard of losing the soul is certain to all. And what A folly is it for men to run themselves upon so great and certain danger, for so uncertain gain, which never any man yet attained to, or are ever like to do it? our Saviour knew how hard a matter it was so set any bounds to the ambitious thoughts or the covetous designs of men: every step the ambitious man takes higher gives him the fairer prospect before him; it raises his thoughts, enlarges his desires, puts new projects into his mind, which like the circles of water spread still farther and farther, till his honour and he be both laid in the dust together: The covetous person is never satisfied with what he enjoys, the B more he gets, still the more he hopes for; and like the grave whither he is going, is always devouring and always craving: Yet neither of these can be thought so vain as to propose no less to themselves than the Empire or riches of the whole world. But our Saviour allows them the utmost, that ever can be supposed as to mens designs for this world; let men be never so ambitious or covetous, they could desire no more than all the world; though they would have all this, yet this all would never make amends for the loss of the soul. It is a thing possible, that one person might by degrees bring the whole world in subjection C to him, but it is possible in so remote a degree that no man in his wits can be thought to design it. How small a part of the inhabited world have the greatest Conquerours been able to subdue! and if the Macedonian Prince was ever so vain to weep that he had no more worlds to conquer, he gave others a just occasion to laugh at so much Ignorance which made him think he had conquered this. And to put a check to such a troublesome ambition of disturbing the world in others, how early was he taken away in the midst of his vast thoughts and designs? What a small thing would the compass of the whole D earth appear to one that should behold it at the distance of the fixed stars? and yet the mighty Empires which have made the greatest noise in the world have taken up but an inconsiderable part of the whole earth. What are then those mean designs which men continually hazard their souls for, as much as if they aimed at the whole world? For we are not to imagine that only Kings and Princes are in any hazard of losing their souls for the sake of this world; for it is not the greatness of mens condition, but their immoderate love to the world which ruins and destroys their souls. And covetousness and ambition do not always raign E in Courts and Palaces, they can stoop to the meanness of a Cottage, and ruin the souls of such as want the things of this world as well as those that enjoy them. So that no state or condition of men is exempt from the hazard of losing the soul for the love of this world, although but one person can be supposed at once to have the possession of the whole world.

[Page] 2. The gain of this world brings but an imaginary happiness, A but the loss of the soul a most real misery. It is easie to suppose a person to have the whole world at his command and not himself; and how can that man be happy that is not at his own command? The cares of Government in a small part of the earth are so great and troublesome, that by the consent of mankind the managers of it are invested with more than ordinary priviledges by way of recompence for them; but what are these to the solicitous thoughts, the continual fears, the restless imployments, the uninterrupted troubles which must attend the gain of the whole world? So that after all the success of such a mans designs, B he may be farther off from any true contentment than he was at the beginning of them. And in that respect mens conditions seem to be brought to a greater equality in the world, because those who enjoy the most of the world do oft-times enjoy the least of themselves; which hath made some great Emperours lay down their Crowns and Scepters to enjoy themselves in the retirements of a Cloyster or a Garden. All the real happiness of this world lies in a contented mind, and that we plainly see doth not depend upon mens outward circumstances; for some men may be much farther from it in a higher condition in this world, C than others are, or it may be themselves have been, in a far lower. But if mens happiness did arise from any thing without them, that must be always agreeable to their outward condition; but we find great difference as to mens contentment in equal circumtances, and many times much greater in a private State of life, than in the most publick capacity. By which it appears, that what ever looks like happiness in this world, depends upon a mans soul and not upon the gain of the world; nay it is only from thence that ever men are able to abuse themselves with false notions and Idea's of happiness here. But none of those shall go into another D world with them; farewel then to all imaginary happiness; to the pleasures of sin, and the cheats of a deceitful world; then nothing but the dreadful apprehensions of its own misery shall possess that soul which shall then too late descern its folly, and lament it when it is past recovery. Then the torments of the mind shall never be imputed to melancholy vapours, or a disordered fancy. There will be no drinking away sorrows, no jesting with the sting of conscience, no playing with the flames of another world. God will then no longer be mocked by wicked men, but they shall find to their own eternal horrour and confusion, that E it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He neither wants power to inflict, nor justice to execute, nor vengeance to pursue, nor wrath to punish; but his power is irresistible, his justice inflexible, and his wrath is insupportable. Consider now O foolish sinner that hast hither to been ready to cast away [Page] thy soul upon the pleasures of sin for a season; what a wise exchange A thou wilt make of a poor imaginary happiness for a most real and intolerable misery. What will all the gain of this world signify in that State whither we are all hastening a pace? What contentment will it be to thee then to think of all those bewitching vanities, which have betrayed thy soul into unspeakable misery? Wouldst thou be willing to be treated with all the ceremonies of State and Greatness for an hour or two, if thou wert sure that immediately after thou must undergo the most exquisite tortures and be racked and tormented to death? When men neglect their souls and cast them away upon the sinful pleasures B and gains of this world, it is but such a kind of aiery and phantastical happiness; but the miseries of a lost soul are infinitely beyond the racks and torments of the body. It hath sometimes happened that the horrour of despair hath seized upon mens minds for some notorious crimes in this life, which hath giyen no rest either to body or mind, but the violence of the inward pains have forced them to put an end to this miserable life; as in the case of Iudas. But if the expectation of future misery be so dreadful, what must the enduring of it be? Of all the ways of dying we can hardly imagine any more painful or full of honour C than that of sacrificing their Children to Moloch was among the Canaanites, and Children of Ammon where the Children were put into the body of a brass Image and a fire made under it, which by degrees with lamentable shricks and cryings roasted them to death; yet this above all others in the New Testament is chosen as the fittest representation of the miseries of another world and thence the very name of Gehenna is taken. But as the joys of heaven will far surpass all the pleasure which the mind of a good man hath in this life; so will the torments of Hell as much exceed the greatest miseries of this world. D

But in the most exquisite pains of the body there is that satisfaction still left, that death will at last put an end to them; but that is a farther discovery of the unspeakable folly of losing the soul for the sake of this world, that

3. The happiness of this world can last but for a little time, but the misery of the soul will have no end. Suppose a man had all the world at his command and enjoyed as much satisfaction in it as it was possible for humane nature to have; yet the very thoughts of dying and leaving all in a short time, must needs make his happiness seem much less considerable to E him. And every wise man would provide most for that State wherein he is sure to continue longest. The shortness of life makes the pleasures of it less desirable, and the miseries less dreadful: but an endless State makes every thing of moment which belongs to it. Where there is variety and liberty of [Page] change, there is no necessity of any long deliberation before hand, A but for that which is to continue always the same the greatest consideration is needful, because the very continuance of some things is apt to bring weariness and satiety with it. If a man were bound for his whole life time to converse only with one person without so much as seeing any other, he would desire time and use his best judgement in the choice of him. If one were bound to lie in the same posture without any motion but for a month together, how would he imploy his wits before hand to make it as easie and tolerable as might be? Thus solicitous and careful would men be for any thing that was to continue the same although but for a short B time here: But what are those things to the endless duration of a soul in a misery, that is a perpetual destruction, and everlasting death; always intolerable and yet must always be endured. A misery that must last when time it self shall be no more; and the utmost periods we can imagine fall infinitely short of the continuance of it. O the unfathomable Abysse of Eternity! how are our imaginations lost in the conceptions of it! But what will it then be to be swallowed up in an Abysse of misery and eternity together? And I do not know how such an eternal State of misery could have been represented in Scripture in words more Emphatical than it is; not C only by everlasting fire, and everlasting destrustion, but by a worm that never dyes and a fire that never goes out; and the very same expressions are used concerning the eternal State of the Blessed and the damned; so that if there were any reason to Question the one, there would be the same to question the other also.

4. The loss of this world may be abundantly recompenced, but the loss of the soul can never be. For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? If a man runs the hazard of losing all that is valuable or desirable in this world for the sake of his soul, heaven & eternal happiness will make him infinite amends for it. He will D have no cause to repent of his bargain that parts with his share in this evil world for the joys and glories which are above. They who have done this in the resolution of their minds, have before hand had so great satisfaction in it, Rom. 5. 2. 3. that they have gloried in tribulations and rejoyced in hopes of the glory of God; they have upon casting up their accounts found 8. 18. that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed; because the afflictions they meet with here are but light and momentany, but that which they expected in recompence for them, 2 Cor. 4. 17. was an exceeding and an eternal weight of Glory. O E blessed change! what life can be so desirable as the parting with it is on such terms as these? It was the hopes of this glorious recompence which inspired so many Martyrs to adventure for heaven with so much courage, patience, and constancy in the primitive times of [Page] the Christian Church. How do they look down from heaven and A despise all the vanities of this world in comparison with what they enjoy! And if they are sensible of what is done on earth with what pity do they behold us miserable creatures, that for the sake of the honours, pleasures, or riches of this world venture the loss of all which they enjoy and thereby of our souls too! Which is a loss so great, that no recompence can ever be made for it, no price of redemption can ever be accepted for the delivery of it. For even the Son of God himself who laid down his life for the redemption of souls, shall then come from heaven with flaming fire to take vengeance on all those who so much despise the blood he hath shed for B them, the warnings he hath given to them, the Spirit he hath promised them, the reward he is ready to bestow upon them, as in spight of all to cast away those precious and immortal souls which he hath so dearly bought with his own blood.

Methinks the consideration of these things might serve to awaken our security, to cure our stupidity, to check our immoderate love of this world and inflame our desires of a better. Wherein can we shew our selves men more than by having the greatest regard to that which makes us men? which is our souls. Wherein can we shew our selves Christians better, than by abstaining from all those C hurtful lusts which war against our souls, and doing those things which tend to make them happy? We are all walking upon the shore of eternity, and for all that we know the next tide may sweep us away; shall we only sport and play or gather cockle shells and lay them in heaps like Children, till we are snatched away past all recovery? It is no such easie matter to prevent the losing our souls as secure sinners are apt to imagine. It was certainly to very little purpose that we are bid Phil. 2. 12. to work out our Salvation if lying still would do it; or 2 Pet. 1. 10. to give all diligence about it, if none would serve the turn: Matth. 7. 14 or to strive to enter in at the straight gate, if it D were so wide to receive all sinners. No? Luke 13. 24. Many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able, what then shall become of those that run as far from it as they can? Those, I mean, whom no intreaties of God himself, no kindness of his Son, no not the laying down his life for their souls, no checks or rebukes of their own consciences can hinder from doing those things which do without a speedy and sincere repentance exclude men from the Kingdom of heaven. O that men could at last be perswaded to understand themselves and set a just value upon their immortal souls! How would they then despile the vanities, conquer the temptations, and break through E the difficulties of this present world, and by that means fit their souls for the eternal enjoyment of that blessed State of souls which God the Father hath promised, his Son hath purchased, and the Holy Ghost hath confirmed. To whom be rendred, &c.

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

A DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.

The Second Edition.

LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Henry Mortlock, and are to be sold at his Shops, at the Sign of the White Hart in Westminster Hall, and the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1673.

A DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON Of the SUFFERINGS of CHRIST.

[Page]

[Page]

CHAP. 1. B

Of the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture. Of the uncertainty it leaves us in as to the main articles of Faith, manifested by an Exposition of Gen. 1. suitable to that way. The state of the Controversie in general concerning the sufferings of Christ for us. He did not suffer the same we should have done. The grand mistake in making punishments of the nature of Debts; the difference between them at large discovered, C from the different reason and ends of them. The right of punishment in God, proved against Crellius, not to arise from meer dominion. The end of punishment not bare Compensation, as it is in debts; what punishment due to an injured person by the right of Nature; proper punishment a result of Laws. Crellius his great mistake about the end of Punishments. Not designed for satisfaction of Anger as it is a desire of Revenge. Seneca and Lactantius vindicated against Crellius. The Magistrates interest in Punishment distinct from that of private persons. Of the nature of Anger D in God, and the satisfaction to be made to it. Crellius his great arguments against satisfaction depend on a false Notion of Gods anger. Of the ends of divine Punishments, and the different nature of them in this and the future state.

SIR,

ALthough the Letter I received from your hands contained §. 1. The introduction, concerning the Socinian, way of interpreting Scripture. in it so many mistakes of my meaning and design, that it seemed to be the greatest civility to the E Writer of it, to give no answer at all to it, because that could not be done, without the discovery of far more weaknesses in him, than he pretends to find in my discourse: Yet the weight and importance of the matter may require [Page] a further account from me, concerning the true reason of A the sufferings of Christ. Wherein my design was so far from representing old Errors to the best advantage, or to rack my wits to defend them, as that person seems to suggest; that I aimed at nothing more than to give a true account of what upon a serious enquiry, I judged to be the most natural and genuine meaning of the Christian Doctrine contained in the Writings of the New Testament.

For finding therein such multitudes of expressions which to an unprejudiced mind attribute all the mighty effects of the Love of God to us, to the obedience and sufferings of Christ; B I began to consider what reason there was why the plain and easie sense of those places must be forsaken, and a remote and Metaphorical meaning put upon them. Which I thought my self the more obliged to do, because I could not conceive if it had been the design of the Scripture, to have delivered the received Doctrine of the Christian Church, concerning the reason of the sufferings of Christ, that it could have been more clearly and fully expressed than it is already. So that supposing that to have been the true meaning of the several places of Scripture which we contend for; yet the C same arts and subtilties might have been used to pervert it, which are imployed to perswade men that is not the true meaning of them. And what is equally serviceable to truth and falshood, can of it self, have no power on the minds of men to convince them it must be one, and not the other. Nay, if every unusual and improper acception of words in the Scripture, shall be thought sufficient to take away the natural and genuine sense, where the matter is capable of it; I know scarce any article of Faith can be long secure; and by these arts men may declare that they believe the Scriptures, and yet D believe nothing of the Christian Faith. For if the improper, though unusual acception of those expressions of Christs dying for us, of redemption, propitiation, reconciliation by his blood, of his bearing our iniquities, and being made sin and a curse for us, shall be enough to invalidate all the arguments taken from them to prove that which the proper sense of them doth imply; why may not the improper use of the terms of Creation and Resurrection, as well take away the natural sense of them in the great Articles of the Creation of the World, and Resurrection after death? For if it be enough to prove E that Christs dying for us, doth not imply dying in our stead; because sometimes dying for others imports no more than dying for some advantage to come to them; if redemption being sometimes used for meer deliverance, shall make our redemption by [Page] Christ, wholly Metaphorical; if the terms of propitiation reconcilation, A &c. shall lose their force because they are sometimes used where all things cannot be supposed parallel with the sense we contend for: why shall I be bound to believe that the World was ever created in a proper sense, since those persons against whom I argue, so earnestly contend that in those places in which it seems as proper as any, it is to be understood only in a metaphorical? If when the World and all things are said John 1. 3, 10. to be made by Christ, we are not to understand the production but the reformation of the World and all things in it, although the natural sense of the Words be quite otherwise; what argument B can make it necessary for me not to understand the Creation of the World in a metaphorical sense, when Moses delivers to us the history of it? Why may not I understand in the beginning, Gen. 1. for the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation, as well as Socinus doth in the beginning, John 1. for the beginning of the Evangelical? and that from the very same argument used by him, viz. that in the beginning is to be understood of the main subject concerning which the author intends to write, and that I am as sure it was in Moses concerning the Law given by him as it was in St. Iohn, concerning C the Gospel delivered by Christ. Why may not the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth, be no more than the erection of the Jewish Polity? since it is acknowledged, that by New Heavens and new Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, no more is understood than a new state of things under the Gospel? Why may not the confused Chaos import no more than the state of Ignorance and darkness under which the World was before the Law of Moses? since it is confessed that it signifies in the New Testament such a state of the World before the Gospel appeared? and consequently, why may not the light which made the first D day be the first tendencies to the Doctrine of Moses, which being at first divided and scattered, was united afterwards in one great Body of Laws, which was called the Sun, because it was the great Director of the Iewish Nation, and therefore said to rule the day; as the less considerable Laws of other Nations are called the Moon, because they were to govern those who were yet under the night of Ignorance? Why may not the Firmament being in the midst of the Waters, imply the erection of the Je [...]ish State in the midst of a great deal of trouble, since it is confe [...]ed, that Waters are often taken in Scripture in a Metaphorical E sense for troubles and afflictions? and the Earth appearing out of the Waters, be no more but the settlement of that state aft [...] [...]t [...] troubles; and particularly with great elegancy a [...]ter [...] p [...]age through the Red Sea? And the production [Page]of Herbs and living Creatures, be the great encrease of the People A of all sorts, as well those of a meaner rank (and therefore called herbs) as those of a higher, that were to live upon the other, and sometimes trample upon them, and therefore by way of excellency called the Living Creatures? And when these were multiplied and brought into order, (which being done by steps and degrees, is said to be finished, in several days) then the State and the Church flourished and enjoyed a great deal of pleasure, which was the production of Man and Woman, and their being placed in Paradise (for a perfect Man, notes a high degree of perfection, and a Woman is taken for the Church B in the Revelations): But when they followed the Customs of other Nations which were as a forbidden tree to them, then they lost all their happiness and pleasure, and were expelled out of their own Country, and lived in great slavery and misery, which was the Curse pronounced against them, for violating the rules of Policy established among them. Thus you see how small a measure of wit, by the advantage of those ways of interpreting Scripture, which the subtilest of our adversaries make use of, will serve to pervert the clearest expressions of Scripture to quite another sense than was ever intended by the Writer of C them. And I assure you, if that rule of interpreting Scripture be once allowed, that where words are ever used in a Metaphorical sense, there can be no necessity of understanding them in a proper; there is scarce any thing which you look on as the most necessary to be believed in Scripture, but it may be made appear not to be so upon those terms: for by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language, the strange Idioms of it, the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations, the want of several modes of expression which are used in other D Languages, and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries, and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and Original of the New, you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein, but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words, will put you hard to it, to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them. Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence, I cannot give them that, (which is much more praise worthy) E viz. of discretion and sound judgement. For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words, with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them, they do not attend to the ill consequence [Page] that may be made of this to the overthrowing those A things, the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation. For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory, and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death, and the sorce of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered. So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding, unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense, and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed. And this is that which Socinus B seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie, to rely on most; viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self, Socia. de Servat. Part. 2. Cap. 4. [...] and therefore must needs be false; nay, he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case, supposing that Christ had said it, and risen from the dead, to declare his own Veracity; unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects, and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self. And the reason, he saith, why they believe their Doctrine true, is not barely because God hath said it, but they believe certainly C that God hath said it, because they know it to be true; by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible. The controversie then, concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them: for if Socinus his reason were answerable to his confidence, if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ, were repugnant not only to the Justice, Goodness and Grace of God, but to the nature of the thing; if it appear impossible, that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense, or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for D sin; if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience, and tends rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them, I shall then agree, that no industry can be too great in searching Authors, comparing places, examining Versions, to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things, the Attributes of God, and the design of Christian Religion. But if on the contrary, the Scripture doth plainly assert those things, from whence our Doctrine follows, and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein, or of the sufferings of Christ; if Christs death did E immediately respect God as a sacrifice, and were paid as a price for our Redemption; if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God, that it highly manifests his Wisdom, Justice and Mercy; if it assert nothing but [Page] what is so far from being impossible, that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason, as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin; if, being truly understood, it is so far from enervating, that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion, then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine, not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie. And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain.

For our clearer proceeding herein, nothing will be more necessary, than to understand the true state of the Controversie; §. 2. The state of the Controversie in general. which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some, B who have managed it with greater zeal than judgement; who have asserted more than they needed to have done, and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do: And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads, and laid their own more open to assaults. It is easie to observe, that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion, which few who have considered these things do maintain, and none need to think themselves obliged to do it; which is, That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men, considered under the notion of debts, and that he paid the very C same, which we ought to have done; which in the sense of the Law, is never called Satisfaction, but strict payment. Against this, Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christs paying the very same that we were to have paid; because our penalty was Eternal death, and that as the consequent of inherent guilt, which Christ neither did nor could undergo. Neither is it enough to say, That Christ had undergone Eternal death, unless he had been able to free himself from it; for the admission of one to pay for another, who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could, was not the same which the Law D required. For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned; and if a Mediator could have paid the same, the Original Law must have been disjunctive; viz. That either the Offender must suffer, or another for him; but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant, but a performance of the old. But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law, then it necessarily follows, that what Christ paid, was not the very same which the first Law required; for what need of that, when the very same was paid that was in the obligation? But if it be said, That the Dignity of the person E makes up, what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment: This is a plain confession that it is not the same, but something equivalent, which answers the ends of the Sanction, as much as the same would have done, which is the thing we contend for. Besides, [Page] if the very same had been paid in the strict sense, there A would have followed a deliverance ipso facto; for the release immediately follows the payment of the same: and it had been injustice to have required any thing further, in order to the discharge of the Offender, when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the obligation. But we see that Faith and Repentance, and the consequences of those two, are made conditions on our parts, in order to the enjoying the benefit of what Christ hath procured: So that the release is not immediate upon the payment, but depends on a new contract; made in consideration of what Christ hath done and suffered B for us. If it be said, That by Christs payment we become his; and he requires these conditions of us; besides the contrariety of it to the Scriptures, which make the conditions to be required by him to whom the payment was made; we are to consider, that these very persons assert, that Christ paid all for us, and in our name and stead; so that the payment by Christ, was by a substitution in our room; and if he paid the same which the Law required, the benefit must immediately accrue to those in whose name the debt was paid: For what was done in the name of another, is all one to the Creditor, as if it had been done C by the Debtor himself. But above all things, it is impossible to reconcile the freeness of remission, with the full payment of the very same which was in the obligation. Neither will it serve to say, That though it was not free to Christ, yet it was to us: For the satisfaction and remission must respect the same person; for Christ did not pay for himself, but for us, neither could the remission be to him: Christ therefore is not considered in his own name, but as acting in our stead; so that what was free to him, must be to us; what was exactly paid by him, it is all one as if it had been done by us; so that it is impossible D the same debt should be fully paid and freely forgiven. Much less will it avoid the difficulty in this case to say, That it was a refusable payment; for it being supposed to be the very same, it was not in justice refusable; and however not in equity, if it answer the intention of the Law, as much as the suffering of the offenders had done; and the more it doth that, the less refusable it is. And although God himself found out the way, that doth not make the pardon free, but the designation of the person who was to pay the debt. Thus when our Adversaries dispute against this opinion, no wonder if they do it successfully, E but this whole opinion is built upon a mistake, that satisfaction must be the payment of the very same; which while they contend for, they give our Adversaries too great an advantage, and make them think they triumph over the Faith of [Page] the Church, when they do it only over the mistake of some A particular persons. But the foundation of this mistake, lies in the consideration of punishment, under the notion of debts, and that satisfaction therefore must be by strict payment in rigor of Law; but how great that mistake is, will appear in the subsequent discourse: but it cannot but be wondred at, that the very same persons who consider sins, as debts which must be strictly satisfied for, do withal contend for the absolute necessity of this satisfaction; whereas Socinus his Arguments would hold good, if sins were only considered as debts, and God as the meer Creditor of punishment, he might as freely part B with his own right without satisfaction, as any Creditor may forgive what summ he pleases, to a person indebted to him; and no reason can be brought to the contrary, from that notion of sins, why he may not do it. But if they be considered with a respect to Gods Government of the world, and the honour of his Laws, then some further account may be given, why it may not be consistent with that, to pass by the sins of men, without satisfaction made to them.

And because the mistake in this matter, hath been the foundation of most of the subsequent mistakes on both sides, and C §. 3. Of the difference of debts and punishments. the discovery of the cause of errours, doth far more to the cure of them, than any Arguments brought against them; and withal, the true understanding of the whole Doctrine of satisfaction depends upon it, I shall endeavour to make clear the notion under which our sins are considered; for upon that, depends the nature of the satisfaction which is to be made for them. For while our Adversaries suppose, that sins are to be looked on under the notion of debts in this debate, they assert it to be wholly free for God to remit them, without any satisfaction. They make the right of punishment meerly to depend D on Gods absolute Dominion; and that all satisfaction must be considered under the notion of compensation, for the injuries done to him, to whom it is to be made But if we can clearly shew a considerable difference between the notion of debts and punishments, if the right of punishment doth not depend upon meer Dominion, and that satisfaction by way of punishment, is not primarily intended for compensation, but for other ends, we shall make not only the state of the Controversie much clearer, but offer something considerable towards the resolution of it. The way I shall take for the proof of the difference E between debts and punishments, shall be using the other for the Arguments for it. For besides, that those things are just in matter of debts, which are not so in the case of punishments; as, that it is lawful for a man to forgive all the debts which [Page] are owing him by all persons, though they never so contumaciously A refuse payment, but our Adversaries will not say so in the case of sins; for although they assert, That the justice of God doth never require punishment in case of Repentance, yet withal they assert, That in case of Impenitency, it is not only agreeable, but due to the nature and decrees; and No [...] re [...]pi [...]ntib [...]s [...]mam ro [...] conc [...]de [...]e, id d [...]m [...]m naturae divinae, & decretis ejus & propterea rellitudi [...]i & aeq [...]itati debitu [...] est ac con [...]e [...]ta [...]e [...]m. Socin. de Servat. l. 1. c. 1. No [...] resipis [...]eates [...]oe [...]â non lio rare tum p [...]r se aequitati est admodum cons [...]nta [...]eum, & positis quibusda [...] fi [...]ibus quos D [...]us sibi in re [...]dis hominibus pr [...] sixit [...]lo necessari [...]m. Crell. c. Grot. c. 2. sect. 29. therefore to the rectitude and equity of God not to give pardon. But if this be true, then there is an apparent difference between the notion of debts and punishments; for the Impenitency doth but add to the greatness of the debt: And will they say, it is only in Gods power to remit small debts, but he must B punish the greatest? what becomes then of Gods absolute liberty to part with his own right? will not this shew more of his kindness to pardon the greater, rather than lesser offenders? But if there be something in the nature of the thing, which makes it not only just, but necessary for impenitent sinners to be punished, as Crellius after Socinus frequently acknowledges, then it is plain, that sins are not to be considered meerly as debts, for that obstinacy and impenitency is only punished as a greater degree of sin, and therefore as a greater debt. And withal, those things are lawful in the remission C of debts, which are unjust in the matter of punishments; as it is lawful for a Creditor, when two persons are considered in equal circumstances, to remit one, and not the other; nay, to remit the greater debt, without any satisfaction, and to exact the lesser to the greatest extremity; but it is unjust in matter of punishments, where the reason and circumstances are the same, for a person who hath committed a crime of very dangerous consequence, to escape unpunished, and another who hath been guilty of far less to be severely executed. Besides these considerations, I say, I shall now D prove the difference of debts and punishments, from those two things whereby things are best differenced from each other; viz. The different Reason, and the different End of them.

The different Reason of debts and punishments: The reason of debts is dominion and property, and the obligation of §. 4. The reason of humame punishment is the publick interest. them, depends upon voluntary contracts between parties; but the reason of punishments is Justice and Government, and depends not upon meer contracts, but the relation the person stands in to that Authority to which he is accountable for his actions. For if the obligation to punishment, did depend upon meer E contract, then none could justly be punished, but such who have consented to it by an antecedent contract: If it be said, That a contract is implied, by their being in society with others; that is as much as I desire to make the difference appear, [Page] for in case of debts, the obligation depends upon the voluntary A contract of the person; but in case of punishments, the very relation to Government, and living under Laws doth imply it. And the right of punishment depends upon the obligation of Laws, where the reason of them holds, without any express contract, or superiority of one over another; as in the case of violation of the Law of Nations, that gives right to another Nation to punish the infringers of it. Otherwise Wars could never be lawful between two Nations, and none could be warrantable, but those of a Prince against his rebellious subjects, who have broken the Laws themselves consented B expresly to. Besides, in case of debts, every man is bound to pay, whether he be call'd upon or no; but in case of punishments, no man is bound to betray or accuse himself. For the obligation to payment in case of debt; ariseth from the injury sustained by that particular person, if another detains what is his own from him; but the obligation to punishment, arises from the injury the Publick sustains by the impunity [...] of crimes, of which the Magistrates are to take care; who by the dispensing of punishments, do shew that to be true which Grotius asserts, that if there be any Creditor to be assigned C in punishment, it is the publick good: Which appears by this, that all punishments are proportioned, according to the influence the offences have upon the publick interest; for the reason of punishment is not because a Law is broken, but because the breach of a Law tends to dissolve the community, by infringing the Authority of the Laws, and the honour of those who are to take care of them. For if we consider it, the measure of punishments is in a well ordered State, taken from the influence which crimes have upon the peace and interest of the community. No man questions, but that Malice, Pride D and Avarice, are things really as bad as many faults, that are severely punished by humane Laws; but the reason these are not punished is, because they do not so much injury to the publick interest, as Theft and Robbery do. Besides, in those things wherein the Laws of a Nation are concerned, the utmost rigor is not used in the preventing of crimes, or the execution of them when committed, if such an execution may endanger the publick more than the impunity of the offenders may do. And there are some things which are thought fit to be forbidden, where the utmost means are not used to E prevent them; as Merchants are forbidden to steal customs, but they are not put under an Oath not to do it. And when penalties have been deserved, the execution of them hath been deferred, till it may be most for the advantage of the [Page] publick: as Ioabs punishment till Solomons Reign, though he deserved it as much in Davids. So that the rule commonly talked of, Fiat justitia & pereat mundus, is a piece of Pedantry, rather than true Wisdom; for whatever penalty inflicted, brings a far greater detriment to the publick, than the forbearance of it, is no piece of Justice to the State, but the contrary, the greatest Law, being the safety and preservation of the whole body. By which it appears, that in humane Laws, the reason of punishment is not, that such an action is done, but because the impunity in doing it, may have a bad influence on the publick interest; but in debts, the right of Restitution B depends upon the injury received by a particular person, who looks at no more than the reparation of his loss by it.

We are now to consider, how far these things will hold in Divine Laws, and what the right of punishment doth result §. 5. The right of Divine punishment not meer Dominion. Crell. Respons. ad Grot. cap. 2. sect. 1. &c. from there. For Crellius, the subtillest of our Adversaries, knowing how great consequence the resolution of this is, in the whole Controversie of Satisfaction, vehemently contends, That the right of punishment doth result from Gods absolute Dominion, and therefore he is to be considered as the offended party, and not as Governor in the right of inflicting punishment; for which his C first Argument is, That our obedience is due to Gods Law, on the account of his Dominion; but when that is not performed, p. 144. the penalty succeeds in its room, and therefore that doth belong to God on the same account: His other arguments are, from the compensation of injuries due to the offended party, and from Gods anger against sin, in which he is to be considered as the offended party: These two latter will be answered under the next head; the first I am to examine here. He therefore tells us, that the right of punishment belongs to Gods Dominion, because the reason of his Government of mankind is, because he D is the Lord of them. But, for our better understanding this, we are to consider, although the original right of Government doth result from Gods Dominion; for therefore our obedience is due, because of his Soveraignty over us; yet when God takes upon him the notion of a Governor, he enters into a new relation with his creatures, distinct from the first as meer Lord. For he is equally Lord of all to whom he gives a being, but he doth not require obedience upon equal terms, nor governs them by the same Laws: Dominion is properly shewed in the exercise of power; but when God gives Laws according to which he will E reward and punish, he so far restrains the exercise of his Dominion to a subserviency to the ends of Government. If we should suppose, that God governs the world meerly by his Dominion, we must take away all rewards and punishments; for then the [Page] actions of men, would be the meer effects of irresistable power, A and so not capable of rewards and punishments; for there could be neither of these, where mens actions are not capable of the differences of good and evil, and that they cannot be, if they be the acts of Gods Dominion, and not of their own. But if God doth not exercise his full Dominion over rational creatures, it is apparent that he doth govern them under another notion than as meer Lord, and the reason of punishment is not to be taken from an absolute right which God doth not make use of, but from the ends and designs of Government, which are his own Honour, the Authority of his Laws, and the good B of those whom he doth govern. And Crellius is greatly mistaken, when he makes punishment to succeed in the place of the right of obedience; for it is only the desert of punishment, which follows upon the violation of that right, and as we assert, that the right of obedience is derived from Gods Soveraignty, so we deny not, but the desert of punishment is from the violation of it; but withal we say, that the obligation to punishment depends upon the Laws, and Gods right to inflict punishment (Laws being supposed) is immediately from that Government which he hath over mankind: For otherwise, if the C whole right of punishment did still depend upon Gods Dominion, and the first right of Soveraignty, then al sins must have equal punishments, because they are all equal violations of the fundamental right of obedience; then it were at liberty for God to punish a greater sin, with a less punishment; and a lesser sin, with a greater: And lastly, this would make the punishment of sin, a meer Arbitrary thing in God; for there would be no reason of punishment, but what depended upon Gods meer will; whereas the reason of punishment in Scripture is drawn from a repugnancy of sin to the divine purity and holyness, D and not meerly from Gods power or will to punish; but if that were all the reason of it, there would be no repugnancy in the nature of the thing for the most vitious person to be rewarded, and the most pious to be made everlastingly miserable. But who ever yet durst say or think so? From whence it appears that the relation between sin and punishment is no result of Gods arbitrary will; but it is founded in the nature of the things, so that as it is just for God to punish offenders, so it would be unjust to punish the most innocent person without any respect to sin. But if the right of punishment depends E meerly on Gods Dominion, I cannot understand why God may not punish when, and whom, and in what manner he pleaseth; without any impeachment of his Justice, and therefore it is to be wonder'd at, that the same persons who assert the [Page] right of punishment to be meerly in Gods dominion, should A yet cry out of the injustice of one person being punished for anothers faults; for why may not God exercise his dominion in this case? yes, say they, he may his dominion, but he cannot punish, because punishment supposes guilt, and cannot be just without it; how far that reaches, will be examined afterwards; at present, we take notice of the contradiction to themselves which our Adversaries are guilty of, that they may serve their own hypothesis, for when we dispute with them, against absolute remission without satisfaction, then they contend that the right of punishment is a meer act of dominion, and God may B part with his right, if he please; but when they dispute with us against the translation of punishment from one to another, then they no longer say that the right of punishment is an act of dominion, but that it is a necessary consequent of inherent guilt, and cannot be removed from one to another. And then they utterly deny that punishment is of the nature of debts; for one mans money, they say, may become anothers, but one Soc. de Servat. l. 3. c. 3. Prae [...]ect. c 18. mans punishment cannot become anothers: Thus they give and take, deny and grant, as it serves for their present purposes.

2. The different end of debts and punishments, make it appear §. 6. 2. The end of punishments not bare compensation as it is in debts. [...] C that there is a difference in the nature of them; for the intention of the obligation to payment in case of debt, is the compensation of the damage which the Creditor sustains; but the intention of punishment, is not bare compensation, but it is designed for greater and further ends. For which we are to consider the different nature of punishments, as they are inflicted by way of reparation of some injury done to private persons, and as they do respect the publick good. I grant, that private persons in case of injuries, seek for compensation of the damage they sustain, and so far they bear the nature of D debts; but if we consider them as inflicted by those who have a care of the publick, though they are to see that no private persons suffers injury by another; yet the reason of that is not meerly that he might enjoy his own, but because the doing injuries to others tends to the subversion of the ends of Government. Therefore, I can by no means admit that Position of Crellius, that a Magistrate only punishes as he assumes the person of the particular mon who have received injuries from Crell. [...]. G [...]ot. cap. 2. Sect. 2. p. 14 [...]. Sect. 17. p. 162. other; for he aims at other ends than meerly the compensation of those injured persons. Their great end is according to E the old Roman Formula, nè quid Resp. detrimenti capiat: the reason of exacting penalties upon private men is still with a regard to the publick safety. Supposing men in a state of nature no punishment is due to the injured person, but restitution of damage, [Page] and compensation of the loss that accrues to him by the A injury sustained; and whatever goes beyond this, is the effect of Government, which constitutes penalties for preservation of the Society which is under Laws. But herein Crellius is our adversary, but with no advantage at all to his Cause; for he offers to prove against Grotius, that something more is due by an injury beyond bare compensation for what the other is supposed to lose by the right of nature; for saith he, in every injury there is not only the reall damage which the person sustains, but there is a contempt of the person implyed in it, for which as well as the former, he ought to have compensation. To which I answer, B 1. That this doth not prove what he designs, viz. that punishment doth belong to the injured person in a state of Nature, beyond bare restitution, but that it is necessary, that men should not continue in such a state, that so they may be vindicated from that contempt, and others compelled to restitution. Both which, as they are punishments, are not in the power of the offended party as such, but shew that it is very reasonable there should be Laws and Governours, that private persons may be preserved in their just rights, and offenders punished for the vindication not only of their honour, but of the Laws too. And C Laws being established, the injured person hath right to no more, than the compensation of his loss; for that being forced upon the offending party, is a sufficient vindication of his honour. 2. If the contempt of a private person makes a compensation necessary, how much more will this hold in a publick Magistrate; whose contempt by disobedience is of far worse consequence than that of a private person. And by this argument Crellius overthrows his main hypothesis, viz. that God may pardon sin without satisfaction; for if it be not only necessary, that the loss be compensated but the dishonour too; then so much D greater as the dishonour is; so much higher as the person is; so much more beneficial to the world as his Laws are; so much more necessary is it that in order to pardon there must be a satisfaction made to him, for the affronts he hath received from men. And if the greatness of the injury be to be measured as Crellius asserts, from the worth and value of the thing, from Crell. c. Grot. cap. 2. p. 174. the dignity and honour of the person, from the displicency of the fact to him, which he makes the measure of punishment; this makes it still far more reasonable, that God should have satisfaction for the sins of men, than that men should have for the injuries E done them by one another; especially considering what the same Author doth assert afterwards, that it is sometime repugnant to justice, for one to part with his own right in case of injuries, & Sect. 29. p. 198. that either from the nature and circumstances of the things themselves, [Page] or a decree or determination to the contrary, for the first A he instanceth in case of not orious defamation; in which he saith, it is a dishonest and unlawful thing for a man, not to make use of his own right for his vindication, and for the other, in case of great obstinacy and malice. By both which, it is most apparent, that Crellius puts a mighty difference between the nature of debts, and punishments, since in all cases he allows it lawful for a person free, to remit his debts; but in some cases he makes it utterly unlawful for a person not to make use of his right for punishment. And withal if a private person may not part with his own right in such cases, how unreasonable is it not to assert the B same of the great Governour of the world? and that there may be a necessity for him upon supposition of the contempt of himself and his Laws, to vindicate himself and his honour to the world, by some remarkable testimony of his severity against sin.

But Crellius yet urgeth another end of punishment which §. 7. Of Crelli [...]s his great mistake about the end of punishments. Crell. cap. 2. sect. 2 sect. 28. though the most unreasonable of all others, yet sufficiently proves from himself the difference of debts and punishments, which is, the delight which the injured person takes in seeing the offender punished. This he so much insists upon, as though he made it the most natural end of punishment, for saith he, among C the Punishments which a Prince or any other free Person can inflict, revenge is in the first place, and the more there is of that in any thing, the more properly it is called a punishment; and he tells what he means by this ultio; viz. solatium ex alieno dolore, the contentment taken in anothers pain. But saith he, no P. 191. man must object, that this is a thing evil in it self; for although it be forbidden us under the New Testament, yet in it self it is not unlawful for one that hath suffered pain from another to seek for the case of his own pain, by the miseries of him that injured him: and for this purpose, saith he, we have the Passion of D Anger in us, which being a desire of returning injuries, is then satisfied when it apprehends it done. But how absurd and unreasonable this doctrine is, will be easily discovered, for this would make the primary intendment of punishment to be the evil of him that suffers it. Whereas the right of punishment is derived from an injury received, and therefore that which gives that right, is some damage sustained, the reparation of which is the first thing designed by the offended party: Though it take not up the whole nature of punishment. And on this account no man can justly propose any end to himself in anothers evil, but E what comes under the notion of restitution. For the evil of another is only intended in punishment as it respects the good of him for whose sake that evil is undergone. When that good may be obtained without anothers evil, the desire of it is unjust [Page] and unreasonable: and therefore all that contentment that any A one takes in the evil another undergoes, as it is evil to him, is a thing repugnant to humane nature, and which all persons condemn in others when they allow themselves in it. It will be hard for Crellius to make any difference between this end of punishment which he assigns, and the greatest cruelty; for what can that be worse than taking delight in making others miserable, and seeing them so when he hath made them. If it be replyed, that cruelty is without any cause, but here a just cause is supposed, I answer, a just cause is only supposed for the punishment, but there can be no just cause for any to delight in the miseries B of others, and to comfort themselves by inflicting or beholding them. For the evil of another is never intended, but when it is the only means left for compensation; and he must be guilty of great inhumanity, who desires anothers evil any further than that tends to his own good, i. e. the reparation of the damage sustained; which if it may be had without anothers evil, then that comes not by the right of nature within the reason of punishment; and consequently where it doth not serve for that end, the comfort that men take in it is no part of justice, but cruelty. For there can be no C reason at all assigned for it; for that lenimentum doloris which Crellius insists on is meerly imaginary, and no other than the Dog hath in gnawing the stone that is thrown at him; and for all that I know, that propension in nature to the retribution of evil for evil any further than it tends to our security, and the preservation for the future, is one of the most unreasonable Passions in humane Nature.

And if we examine the nature of Anger either considered §. 8. Of the nature of ang [...] and revenge in m [...]n, and whether punishments are designed to satisfie them. Naturally or Morally, the intention of it is not the returning evil to another, for the evil received, but the security D and preservation of our selves, which we should not have so great a care of, unless we had a quick sense of injuries, and our blood were apt to be heated at the apprehension of them. But when this passion vents it self, in doing others injury to alleviate its own grief, it is a violent and unreasonable perturbation; but being governed by reason, it aims at no more, than the great end of our beings; viz. Self-Preservation. But when that cannot be obtained without anothers evil, so far the intendment of it is lawful, but no further. And I cannot therefore think those Philosophers, E who have defined Anger to be [...], by whose Authority Crellius defends himself, when he makes Crell. c 2. sect. 22. [...]. 177. anger to be a desi [...]e of revenge, did throughly consider what was just and reasonable in it, but barely what was natural, [Page] and would be the effect of that passion, if not governed by A reason. For otherwise Iul. Scaligers definition is much more true and justifiable, that it is appetitus depulsionis; viz. that whereby we are stirred up to drive away from us, any Exert. 313. thing that is injurious to us. But because Crellius alledgeth a saying of Seneca, that would make vindicta of the nature of punishment, duabus de causis punire princeps solet, si aut se vindicet aut alium: We shall oppòse to this the sense of Seneca de Clem. l. 1. c. 20. the same Author in this matter, which may sufficiently clear the other passage: For, saith he, Inhumanum verbum est, De Irâ. l. 2. c. 32. & quidem pro justo receptum, ultio, & a contumelia non B differt nisi ordine: qui dolorem regerit, tantum excusatius peccat. And no man speaks with greater vehemency against the delight in others punishments than he doth; for he always asserts, the only reason of punishment, to be some advantage which is to come by it, and not meerly to satisfie anger, or to allay their own griefs, by seeing anothers: For, saith he, the punishment is inflicted, Non quia delectetur ullius De I [...]á l. 1. c. 6. poena (proculest enim à sapiente tam inhumana feritas) sed ut documentum omnium sint: So that it is only the usefulness of punishment according to him, which makes it become C any wiseman; and so far from a satisfaction of his grief by anothers punishment, that he makes that a piece of inhumanity, not incident to any who pretend to wisdom. Nay, he denies, that a just punishment doth flow from Anger; for he that inflicts that, doth it, non ipsius poenae avidus sed quia oportet, not as desiring the punishment, but because De Irâ. l. 1. c. 9. Cap. 12. there are great reasons for it: And elsewhere, Exsequar quia oportet, non quia dolet: he is far enough then from Cap. 13. approving, that imaginary compensation of one mans grief by anothers. And he shews at large, that the weakest natures, D and the least guided by reason, are the most subject to this anger and revenge. And although other things be pretended, the general cause of it is, a great infirmity of humane nature; and thence it is, that children and old men, and sick persons, are the most subject to it; and the better any are, the more they are freed from it:

—quippe minuti

Semper & infirmi est animi, exiguique voluptas

Ultio—

E

He makes Cruelty to be nothing else, but the intemperance De Clem. l. 2. c. 4. of the mind in exacting punishment; and the difference between a Prince and a Tyrant to lye in this, That one delights De Clem. l. 1. c. 11, 12. in punishing, the other never does it but in case of necessity, [Page] when the publick good requires it. And this throughout his A discourse, he makes the measure of punishment; who then could imagine, that he should speak so contradictory to himself, as to allow punishment for meer revenge, or the easing ones own griefs, by the pains of another? In the places cited by Crellius, (if taken in his sense) he speaks what commonly is, not what ought to be in the world; for he disputes against it in that very place, therefore that cannot be the meaning which he contends for. The common design of punishments by a Prince, saith he, is either to vindicate himself or others. I so render his words, because vindicare, B when it is joyned with the person injured, as here, vindicare se aut alium, doth properly relate to the end of punishment, which is asserting the right of the injured person; but when it is joyned with the persons who have done the injury, or the crimes whereby they did it, then it properly signifies to punish. Thus Salust useth, Vindicatum in eos; and Cicero, In milites nostros vehementer vindicatum, and Salust. in Catalin. Cicero 7. v. for the fact very frequently in him, maleficia vindicare: but when it relates to the injured person, as here it doth, it cannot signifie meerly to punish; for then se vindicare would C be to punish ones self, but to assert his own right in case of injury, though it be with the punishment of another: For Vindicatio, as Cicero defines it, est per quam vis & injuria & omnino quod obsuturum est defendendo aut ulciscendo Cicero de Iaveat. 2. propulsatur. So that the security of our selves in case of force or injury, is that which is called Vindication; which sometimes may be done by defence, and other times by punishment. And that Seneca doth mean no more here, is apparent by what follows; for in case of private injuries, he saith, poenam si tutò poterit donet, he would have the Prince forgive D the punishment, if it may be done with safety; so that he would not have any one punished, to satisfie anothers desire of revenge, but to preserve his own safety: And afterwards he saith, It is much beneath a Princes condition, to need De Irâ. l 1. c. 21. that satisfaction which arises from anothers sufferings: But for the punishments of others, he saith, The Law hath established three ends, the amendment of the persons, or making others better by their punishments, or the publick security, by taking away such evil members out of the body: So that in publick punishments, he never so much as supposes, that contentment E which revenge fancies in others punishments, but makes them wholly designed for the publick advantage. For the Laws in punishment do not look backward but forward; for as Non praeterita sed futura intuebitur; nam ut Plato ait, remo pr [...] de [...]s punit quia pe [...]catum est, sed ne pec [...]r. Sen. de Irâ. l. 1. c. 16. Plato saith, No wise man ever punished, meerly because men [Page]had offended, but lest they should: For past things cannot A be rec [...]ed, but future are, therefore forbidden, that they may be prevented. So to the same purpose is the saying of Lactantius, produced by Grotius, Surgimus ad vindictam Lact. de ira Dei. c. 17. non quia laest sumus, sed ut disciplina servetur, mores corrigantur, licentia comprimatur: haec est Ira justa. To which Crellius answers, That this signifies nothing, unless it can be proved, that no man may justly punish another, meerly Cap. 2. sect. 13. because he is wronged. If he means of the right to punish, we deny not that to be, because the person is wronged; but if he understands it of the design and end of punishment, B then we deny, that it is an allowable end of punishments, any further than it can come under the notion of restitution, of which we have spoken already. When a Master (which is the instance he produceth) punisheth his servants, because they have disobeyed him: The reason of that punishment, is not the bare disobedience, but the injury which comes to him by it; the reparation of which he seeks by punishment, either as to his authority, security or profit. But he adds, That where punishment is designed, for preservation of discipline, and amendment of manners, and keeping persons in C order, (which are the ends mentioned by Lactantius) it is where the interest of the person lies, in the preservation of thes [...], and is thefore offended at the neglect of them. To which I answer, That the interest of such a one, is not barely the interest of an offended party, as such, but the interest of a Governor; and no body denies, but such a one may be an offended party: but the question is, Whether the design of punishment be meerly to satisfie him as the offended party, or to answer the ends of Government? For Crellius hath already told us, what it is to satisfie one as an offended party, D that is, to ease himself by the punishment of others; but what ever is designed for the great ends of Government, is not to be considered under that notion, although the Governor may be justly offended at the neglect of them. And there is this considerable difference between the punishment made to an offended party, as such, and that which is for the ends of Government, that the former is a satisfaction to Anger, and the latter to Laws and the publick interest. For Crellius disputes much for the right of Anger in exacting punishments; the satisfaction of which, in case of real injury, E Cap. 2. sect. 1. p. 143. Sect. 13. p. 161. he never makes unlawful, but in case that it be prohibited us by one, whose power is above our own: nay he makes it otherwise the primary end of punishment. So that anger is the main thing upon these terms to be respected in punishment: [Page] but where it is designed for the ends before mentioned, A there is no necessity of any such passion as anger to be satisfied, the ends of punishment may be attained wholly without it: And publick punishment, according to Seneca, Se [...]. de [...]a, l. 1. c. 14. & 15. non ira sed ratio est, is no effect of anger, but reason; for, saith he, nihil minus quam irasci punientem decet: nothing less becomes one that punisheth, than anger doth; for all punishments being considered as Medicines, no man ought to give Physick in anger, or to let himself blood in a sury: A Magistate, saith he, when he goes to punish, ought to appear Cap. 16. only vultu legis quae non irascitur, sed constituit, with B the continuance of the Law, which appoints punishments without passion: The reason of which is, because the Law aims not primarily at the evil of the man that suffers punishment, but at the good which comes to the publick by such sufferings. For the first design of the Law was to prevent any evil being done, and punishment coming in by way of Sanction to the force of the Law, must have the same primary end which the Law it self had; which is not to satisfie barely the offended party for the breach, any further than that satisfaction tends to the security of the Law, and preventing C the violation of it for the future. The substance of what I have said upon this subject, may be thus briefly comprized, That antecedently to Laws, the offended party hath right to no more than bare reparation of the damage sustained by the injury; that the proper notion of punishment is consequent to Laws, and the inflicting of it is an act of Government, which is not designed for meer satisfaction of the anger of the injured person, but for the publick good, which lies in preserving the authority of the Laws, the preventing all injuries by the security of mens just rights, and the vindication D of the dignity and honor of him, who is to take Quibus (sc. solatio & securitati) addi poss [...]nt honoris ac dign tatis, per iajuriam violatae, & aliquâ ratione immi [...]tae vi [...]diciae, ass [...]tioque juris nostri Crel. cap. 2. sect. 28. p. 191. care of the publick good. For these Crellius himself acknowledgeth, to be the just ends of punishments, only he would have the satisfaction a man takes in anothers evil, to come in the first place; wherein how much he is mistaken, I hope we have already manifested. Because the proper nature of punishment depending upon Laws, the Laws do not primarily design the benefit of private persons (supposing that were so) but the advantage of that community which they are made for. E

And in those cases wherein the Magistrate doth right to § 9. The Interest of the Magistrate in punishment distinct from that of private persons. particular persons in the punishment of those who have injured them, he doth it not as taking their person upon him, for he aims at other things than they do; they look at a bare [Page] compensation for the injury received; but the Magistrate at A the ill consequence the impunity of injuries may be of to the publick: they, it may be at the satisfaction of their disoleasure; but he at the satisfaction of the Laws; they at their own private damage; he at the violation of the publick peace. And from hence among those Nations who valued all crimes at a certain rate, in matters of injury between man and man, the injured person was not only to receive compensation for his wrong; but a considerable fine was to be paid to the Exchequer for the violation of the publick peace. This Tacitus D [...] [...] German. c. 12. G [...]. de. [...]. G [...]h. i [...] [...]. a [...] [...]. Go [...]h p. [...]7. [...] G [...]. ad [...]o [...]. [...] A [...]. F [...] [...]. Gloss. [...]. F [...] observes among the old Germans, Grotius of the old Gothick B Laws, and from them (as most of our modern Laws and Customs are derived) Lindenbrogius of the Salick, Alemannick, Lombardick, Spelman of the Saxon, who tells us in case of murder there were three payments, one to the Kindred, which was called Megbote; the second to the Lord, called Manbote, the third to the King, called Freda from the German Frid, which signifies peace, it being the consideration paid to the King for the breach of the publick peace. And this, saith he, in all actions, was anciently paid to the King, because the peace was supposed to be broken, not by meer force, C but by any injuries; and if the action was unjust, the Plain tiffe paid it; if just, the defendant. And the measure of it, saith Bignonius, was the tenth part of the value of the thing Big [...]o [...]. not. i [...] M [...] [...]m cap. 20. as estimated by Law; which by the Customs of the ancient Romans was deposited at the commencing of a suit by both, and only taken up again by him who overcame; and was by them called Sacramentum, as Varro tells us. And the same [...]a ro. de. L. [...]. l [...]b. 4. custom was observed among the Greeks too, as appears by Iulius Pollux, who tells us it was called [...] among I [...] Pollux. l 8. them, and in publick actions was the fifth part, in private D the tenth. But that which was paid to the publick in case of murder, was among the Greeks called [...], the same with poena, for Hesychius tells us that is [...], and to the same purpose the Scholiast on Homer on those words, Iliad. 1. [...], by which the Original of the name poena, comes from a payment made to the publick, according to that known rule, interest reip. delicta puniri, that persons may see how much the publick safety is concerned, that crimes be punished. From which and many other things which might be insisted on, Crellius his Hypothesis will E appear to be false, viz. that when the Magistrate doth judge in the affairs of particular men, he doth it only as assuming the person of those men; whereas it appears from the reason of the thing, and the Custom of Nations, that the interest of the [Page] Magistrate is considered as distinct from that of private persons, A when he doth most appear in vindication of injuries. But all this is managed with a respect to the grand hypothesis, viz that the right of punishing doth belong only to the offended party as such, that the punishment is of the nature of debts, and the satisfaction by compensation to the anger of him who is offended. The falsity of which this discourse was designed to discover.

Having thus considered the nature of punishments among men, we come more closely to our matter, by examining how far this will hold in the punishments which God inflicts on the B account of sin. For which two things must be enquired into, 1. In what sense we attribute anger to God. 2. What are the great ends of those punishments God inflicts on men on the account of sin.

For the first, though our Adversaries are very unwilling to §. 10. Of the nature of Anger in God; the satisfact on to be made to it. Crell. cap. 2. sect. 1. p. 145. p. 177. allow the term of punitive justice, yet they contend for a punitive anger in God, and that in the worst sense as it is appetitus vindictae: for after Crellius hath contended that this is the proper notion of anger in general; neither ought any one to say, he adds, that anger as other passions is attributed improperly C to God; for setting aside the imperfections, which those passions are subject to in us, all the rest is to be attributed to him; taking away then that perturbation, and pain, and grief we find in our selves in anger, to which the abhorrency of sin answers in God, all the rest doth agree to him. I would he had a little more plainly told us what he means by all the rest, but we are to ghess at his meaning by what went before, where he allows of Cicero, and Aristotles definition of Anger, whereof the one is, that it is libido, or (as Crellius Cicer. T [...]. 4. Arist. Rhet. l. 2. c. 2. would rather have it,) cupiditas puniendi, the other D [...], &c. and himself calls it poenae appetitio, and in another place, that it may be as properly defined cupiditas vindictae as cupiditas poenae, or affectus vindicandi, as well as puniendi: in all which places, he doth assert such an Crell. c. 2. sect. 22 p. 177. anger in God as supposes such a motion, or desire, or inclination to punish sin when it is committed, as there is in us when an injury is done us, only the perturbation and pain excluded. But he hath not thought fit to explain how such new motions or inclinations in the divine nature every time sin is commited, are consistent with the immutability and perfection of it; E nor what such a kind of desire to punish in God imports, whether a meer inclination without the effect, or an inclination with the effect following: if without the effect, then either because the sin was not great enough, or Gods honour [Page] was not concerned to do it, and in this case the same reasons A which make the effect not to follow, make the desire of it inconsistent with the divine wisdom and perfection: or else because the effect is hindred by the repentance of the person, or some other way which may make it not necessary to do it; then upon the same reason the effect is suspended, the inclination to do it should be so too; for that must be supposed to be governed by an eternal reason and counsel as well as his actions; unless some natural passions in God be supposed antecedent to his own wisdom and counsel, which is derogatory to the infinite perfection of God, since those are judged imperfections in our selves: If it be taken only with the effect following it, B then God can never be said to be angry but when he doth punish, whereas his wrath is said to be kindled in Scripture, where the effect hath not followed; which if it implies any more than the high provocation of God to punish (as I suppose it doth not) then this inclination to punish is to be conceived distinct from the effect following it. But that conception of anger in God seems most agreeable to the divine nature, as well as to the Scriptures, which makes it either the punishment it self, as Crellius elsewhere acknowledges it is often taken so; or Crell. de verâ Relig. l. 1. c. 30. C Gods declaration of his will to punish, which is called the revelation of the wrath of God against all unrighteousness of men, God thereby discovering the just displeasure he hath against sin; or the great provocation of God to punish, by the sins of men; as when his wrath is said, to be kindled, &c. By this sense we may easily reconcile all that the Scripture saith concerning the wrath of God; we make it agreeable to infinite perfection, we make no such alterations in God, as the appeasing of his anger must imply, if that imply any kind of commotion in him. And thus the grand difficulty of Crellius Crell. cap. 7. sect. 3. p. 350. D appears to be none at all, against all those passages of Scripture which speak of appeasing God, of attonement, and reconciliation, viz. that if they prove satisfaction, they must prove that God being actually angry with mankind before the sufferings of his Son, he must be presently appeased upon his undergoing them. For no more need to be said, than that God being justly provoked to punish the sins of mankind, was pleased to accept of the sufferings of his Son, as a sufficient sacrifice of Attonement for the sins of the world, on consideration of which he was pleased to offer those terms of pardon, E which upon mens performance of the conditions required on their part, shall be sufficient to discharge them from that obligation to punishment which they were under by their sins. And what absurdity, or incongruity there is in this to any principle [Page] of reason, I cannot imagine. But our Adversaries first A make opinions for us, and then shew they are unreasonable. They first suppose that anger in God is to be considered as a passion, and that passion a desire of revenge for satisfaction of it; and then tell us, that if we do not prove, that this desire of revenge can be satisfied by the sufferings of Christ, then we can never prove the doctrine of satisfaction to be true; whereas we do not mean by Gods anger any such passion, but the just declaration of Gods will to punish upon our provocation of him by our sins; we do not make the design of satisfaction to be, that God may please himself in the revenging B the sins of the guilty upon the most innocent person; because we make the design of punishment, not to be the satisfaction of anger as a desire of revenge, but to be the vindication of the honour and rights of the injured person, by such a way as himself shall judge most satisfactory to the ends of his Government.

2. Which is the next thing we are to clear: For which §. 11. Of the ends of divine punishments. Crell. c. 2 sect. 29. p. 129. end we shall make use of the Concession of Crellius, That God hath prefixed some ends to himself in the Government of mankind; which being supposed, it is necessary, that impenitent C sinners should be punished. What these ends of God are, he before tells us, when he enquires into the ends of Divine punishments, which he makes to be, security for the future, by mens avoiding sins, and a kind of [...], or pleasure which P. 195. God takes in the destruction of his implacable enemies, and the asserting and vindicating his own right by punishing, and shewing men thereby, with what care and fear they ought to serve him; and so attains the ends of punishment proposed by Lactantius, and manifestation of the Divine Honor and Majesty, which hath been violated by the sins of men. All these D we accept of, with this caution, That the delight which God takes in the punishing his implacable enemies, be not understood of any pleasure in their misery, as such, by way of meer revenge; but as it tends to the vindication of his Right, and Honor, and Majesty; which is an end suitable to the Divine Nature: but the other cannot in it self; have the notion of an end; for an end doth suppose something desirable for it self; which surely the miseries of others cannot have to us, much less to the Divine Nature. And that place which Crellius insists on to prove the contrary, Deut. 28. 63. The Lord E will rejoyce over you, to destroy you; imports no more, than the satisfaction God takes in the execution of his Justice, when it makes most for his honour, as certainly it doth in the punishment of his greatest enemies. And this is to be understood [Page] in a sense agreeable to those other places, where God is said A not to delight in the death of sinners; which doth not (as Ezek. 18. v. 23, 32. c. 33. 11. Crellius would have it) meerly express Gods benignity and mercy, but such an agreeableness of the exercise of those attributes to Gods nature, that he neither doth nor can delight in the miseries of his creatures in themselves, but as they are subservient to the ends of his Government; and yet such is his kindness in that respect too, that he useth all means agreeable thereto, to make them avoid being miserable, to advance his own glory. And I cannot but wonder that Grotius, who Grot. de satisfact. c. 2. p. 43. Ed. 1617. Grot. de jure belli, &c. l. 2. c. 20. sect. 4. had asserted the contrary in his book of Satisfaction, should in his books De Iure belli ac pacis, assert, That when God punisheth B wicked men, he doth it for no other end, but that he might punish them: For which he makes use of no other arguments, than those which Crellius had objecte [...] [...]gainst him; viz. The delight God takes in punishing, and t [...] judgements of the life to come, when no amendment can be expected; the former hath been already answered, the latter is objected by Crellius against him, when he makes the ends of punishment, meerly to respect the community, which cannot be asserted of the punishments of another life, which must chiefly respect C the vindication of Gods glory, in the punishment of unreclaimable sinners. And this we do not deny to be a just punishment, since our Adversaries themselves, as well as we, make it necessary. But we are not to understand, that the end of Divine punishments doth so respect the community, as though God himself were to be excluded out of it; for we are so to understand it, as made up of God as the Governor, and mankind as the persons governed, whatever then tends to the vindication of the rights of Gods Honor and Soveraignty, tends to the good of the whole, because the manifestation of that D end is so great an end of the whole.

But withal, though we assert in the life to come, the ends of §. 12. The ends of Divine punishments different in this and the future state. punishment not to be the reclaiming of sinners, who had never undergone them, unless they had been unreclaimable; yet a vast difference must be made between the ends of punishments in that, and in this present state. For the other is the Reserve, when nothing else will do, and therefore was not primarily intended; but the proper ends of punishment, as a part of Government, are to be taken from the design of them in this life. And here we assert, that Gods end in punishing, is the advancing E his honor, not by the meer miseries of his creatures, but that men by beholding his severity against sin, should break off the practice of it, that they may escape the punishments of the future state. So that the ends of punishment here, [Page] are quite of another kind, from those of another life; for A those are inflicted, because persons have been unreclaimable by either the mercies or punishments of this life; but these are intended, that men should so far take notice of this severity of God, as to avoid the sins which will expose them to the wrath to come. And from hence it follows, That whatsoever sufferings, do answer all these ends of Divine punishments, and are inflicted on the account of sin, have the proper notion of punishments in them, and God may accept of the undergoing them as a full satisfaction to his Law, if they be such as tend to break men off from sin, and assert Gods B right, and vindicate his honor to the world; which are the ends assigned by Crellius, and will be of great consequence to us in the following Discourse. C D E

CHAP. II. A

[Page]

The particular state of the Controversie, concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries. The debate reduced to two heads: The first concerning Christs sufferings, being a punishment for sin, entred upon. In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men, to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment, from Scripture. The importance of the phrase B of bearing sins. Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself. [...] never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it. Crellius his sense examined. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. The argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered. Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. cleared. Whether Christs death be a proper [...], and whether that doth imply, that it was a punishment of sin? How far the punishments of Children C for their Fathers faults, are exemplary among men. The distinction of calamities and punishments, holds not here. That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, unless they were a punishment of sin, proved against Crellius. Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us, defended. The liberty our Adversaries take in Changing the sense of words. The particles [...], being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin. According to their way of interpreting Scripture, it D had been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein.

THese things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments, and how far they §. 1. The particular state of the controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ for us. are of the nature of debts, and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them, the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie; but that we may proceed with all E possible clearness in a debate of this consequence, we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter; for their concessions are in te [...]ms sometimes so fair, as though the difference were meerly [Page] about words without any considerable difference in the A thing it self. If we charge them with denying satisfaction, Crellius answers in the name of them, that we do it unjustly; Crell. praes. p. 7. for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God, and agreeable to the Scriptures. If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ, they assert the contrary, as appears by the same Author. Nay, Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too. They acknowledge, Ruarus in Epistol. Crell. cap. 9. sect. 2. Cap. 10. sect. 10. Cap. 7, 8, &c. Cap. 1. sect. 57. that Christ dyed for us, nay, that there was a commutation between Christ and us, both of one person for another, and of a price for a person; and that the death of Christ B may be said to move God to redeem us; they acknowledge reconciliation, and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay, they assert, that Christs death was by reason of our sins, and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin. And what could we desire more, if they meant the same thing by these words, which we do? They assert a satisfaction, but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another; in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him. They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ, but only as a condition intervening, upon the performance C of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory, that he might free men from the punishment of their sins. They attribute merit to Christs death but in the same sense that we may merit too, when we do what is pleasing to God. They acknowledge, that Christ died for us, but not in our stead, but for our advantage; that there was a commutation; but not such a one, as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it; when they speak of a moving cause, they tell us, they mean no more than the performance of any condition D may be said to move, or as our prayers and repentance do. The reconciliation they speak of, doth not at all respect God but us; they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ, but not depending upon it any otherwise, than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven, there to expiate our sins by his power, and not by his blood; but they utterly deny, that the death of Christ is to be considered as a pròper expiatory sacrifice for sin; or that it hath any further influence upon it, than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the E truth of his Doctrine, and particularly the promise of remission of sins, on which, and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends; but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine, and that faith may [Page] incline us to obedience, and that obedience being the condition A in order to pardon, at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins. They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to ex ercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings, and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men; but they utterly deny, that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin, or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead; nay, they contend with great vehemency, that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious B cause of anothers punishment; especially one wholly innocent, and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings. Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity. And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates.

1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin, or as a meer act of dominion?

2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin, or only an antecedent condition to

C

his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven?

1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered §. [...]. Whether the sufferings of Christ are to be considered as a punishment of sin. as a punishment of sin, or as a meer act of dominion? for that it must be one or the other of these two, cannot be denyed by our Adversaries; for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ, must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause, or not. If they do, they are then punishments; if not, they are meer exercises of power and dominion; whatever ends they are intended for, and whatever recompence be made for them. So Crellius asserts, that God as absolute Crell. cap. 2. sect. 1. p. 142. D Lord of all, had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ, and therefore might justly deliver him up to death, and give his body to the Cross; and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses, had a right to escape so painful and accursed death, yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him, because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were: but because he saith, for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary, therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might E have done, but he dealt with him by way of command, and rewards proposed for obedience, and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governor, and indulgent Father, who encouraged his Son to undergo hard, but great things. In which we see, that [Page] he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in A God, without any antecedent cause as the reason of them; only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it. But we must yet further enquire into their meaning, for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion, without any respect to sin, yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ, and that the sins of men were the Crell. cap. 1. sect. 7. &c. So [...]i [...]. de Christo servat. l. 3. c. 10. Crell. cap. 1. sect. 16. Socia. l. 2. c. 7. impulsive cause of them. And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful-antecedent cause of the death of Christ, besides the will of God and Christ, yet Crellius in his Vindication B saith, by lawful cause, he meant meritorius, or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye; for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause, or by the occasion of our sins; which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive, or procatartick cause. Which he thus explains, we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind, Crell. c. 1. sect. 11. but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state, now our sins by deserving eternal punishment, do hinder the effect of that decree upon us, and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ, by which it was effected, that this C decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins. But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ; but this effect is hindred by three things, by taking away their sins, by assuring men that their former sins, and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them, and that the effect of that decree shall obtain, all which, saith he, is effected morte Christi interveniente, the death of Christ intervening, but not as the procuring cause. So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the D death of Christ, but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine, which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things: and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause, are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt, but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us; which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause, and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it. For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove, and our sins only as the causes of that. But if it be said, that he speaks not only of the distrust, E but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too, and therefore may be called an impulsive cause, we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ, but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his [Page] Doctrine; therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless A in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that, which for all that we can observe by Crellius, might as well have been done without it; if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his Doctrine, and Christ, without dying, might have had power to save all them that obey him. But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense, as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying, because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine, the belief of which would make men leave their sins; but we contend for a neerer and B more proper sense, viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins, with a respect to God and not to us, and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God; that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour, and the deterring the world from sin, that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered, than the blood of the Son of God. So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense, that the sins of the people were, under the Law, the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices, which were appointed C for the expiation of them. And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered, viz. the mactation, and the oblation of them, the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended; the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement, although the mactation it self, considered with the design of it, was a Sacrificial act too: So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect, either as to our sins, as the impulsive cause of them, so they are to be considered as a punishment, or as to God, with a design to expiate the guilt of them, so they are D a Sacrifice of Attonement. The first consideration is, that we are now upon, and upon which the present debate depends, for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment, then our Adversaries grant, that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it. For the clearing of this, I shall prove these two things.

1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin, but this.

E

2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ, is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God.

[Page] That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of A Scripture, which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect § 3. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa. 53. 45, 6, 7, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 5. 2 [...]. Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 4. 25. to our sins, but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them. Such are those which speak of Christ hearing our sins, of our iniquities being laid upon him, of his making himself an offering for sin, and being made sin and a curse for us, and of his dying sor our sins. All which I shall so far consider, as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them.

1. Those which speak of Christs bearing our sins. As to which we shall consider, First, The importance of the phrase B in general of bearing sin, and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute. For the importance of the phrase, Socinus acknowledges, that it generally signifies bearing the Soc. d [...] s [...]rvat. l. 2. cap. 4. punishment of sin in Scripture: but that sometimes it signifies taking away. The same is confessed by Crellius, but he saith, it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment, but it is Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 32. enough (he says) that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins: and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins, may be said to bear our sins. And for this sense he quotes Numb. 14. 33. And your Children shall C wander in the Wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, untill your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness. Whereby, saith he, it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites, but that by the occasion of their parents sins, they should undergo that trouble, in wandering in the Wilderness, and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land. But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined, (setting aside a total destruction) a greater instance of Gods severity, than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered? D Is it not said, that God did swear in his wrath, they should not enter into his rest? Surely then the debarring them so Psal. 95. 11. Heb. 3. 11. long of that rest, was an instance of Gods wrath, and so according to his own principles must have something of Vindicta in it, and therefore be a proper punishment. The truth is, our Adversaries allow themselves in speaking things most repugnant to Humane Nature in this matter of punishments, that they may justifie their own hypothesis. For a whole Nation to be for forty years debarred from the greatest blessings were ever promised them; and instead of enjoying them, to endure E the miseries and hardships of forty years travels in a barren wilderness, must not be thought a punishment, and only because occasioned by their Parents sins. But whatever is inflicted on the account of sin, and with a design to shew Gods [Page] severity against it, and thereby to deter others from the practice A of it, hath the proper notion of punishment in it; and all these things did concur in this instance, besides the general sense of mankind in the matter of their punishment, which was such, that supposing them preserved in their liberty, could not have been imagined greater. And therefore Vatablus, whom Socinus and Crellius highly commend, thus renders those words, dabunt poenas pro fornicationibus vestris quibus Doc [...]issi [...]e & [...]ga [...]tissi [...]è Vata [...]lus [...]t f [...]e [...]olet. Soc. d [...]v. l. 1 c. 8. Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 31. defecistis a Deo vestro: they shall suffer the punishment of your forications. And that bearing the sins of Parents doth imply properly bearing the punishment of them, methinks they B should not so earnestly deny, who contend that to be the meaning of the words in Ezekiel, The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father; viz. that he shall not bear the punishment Ezekiel 18 20. of his Fathers sins. Where in bearing iniquity with a respect to their Parents sins, by their own confession, must be taken for the proper punishment; for otherwise they do not deny, Crell. cap. 4. Sect. 15. but Children, notwithstanding that sentence, may undergo much affliction on the occasion of their Parents sins.

But Socinus further objects, that bearing sins doth not imply §. 4. Of the Scape-Go [...]ts bearing away the sins of the people. the punishment of them, because the Scape-Goat under the C Law, is said to bear upon him the iniquities of the people, and yet could not be said to be punished for them. To which Grotius answers, that Socinus takes it for granted without reason, that the Scape-Goat could not be said to be punished for Socil. 2. c. 4. Lev. 16. 22. Grot. de sat. cap. 1. the sins of the people; for punishment in general, may fall upon beasts for the sins of men, Gen. 9. 5. Exod. 21. 28. Lev. 20. 15. Gen. 8. 21. and Socinus hath no cause to say, that the Scape-Goat was not slain; for the Iewish Interpreters do all agree that he was, and however the sending him into the Wilderness was intended as a punishment; and most probably D by an unnatural death. To which Crellius replies, That in Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 56. the general, he denies not but punishment may fall upon beasts as well as men; but (that he might shew himself true to his principle, that one cannot be punished for anothers faults,) he falls into a very pleasant discourse, That the Beasts are not said to be punished for mens sins, but for their own, and therefore when it is said, before the flood, that all flesh had corrupted his way; he will by no means have it understood only Gen. 6. 12. of men, but that the sins of the beasts at that time, were greater than ordinary, as well as mens. But he hath not E told us what they were, whether by eating some forbidden herbs; or e [...]g into conspiracies against mankind their lawful Soveraigns, or unlawful mixtures; and therefore we have yet reason to believe, that when God saith, the ground G [...]n. 8. 21. [Page] was cursed for mans sake, that the beasts were punished for A mans sin. And if all fl [...]sh, must comprehend be [...]sts in this place, why shall not all flesh seeing the glory of the Lord, take Isa. 40. 5. in the beasts there too: for V [...]ablus parallels this place with the other. But if, saith Crellius any shall contend that some beasts at least were innocent, then, he saith, that those though they were destroyed by the flood, yet did not suffer punishment, but only a calamity by occasion of the sins of men. I wonder he did not rather say, that the innocent beasts were taken into the Ark, for the propagation of a better kind afterwards. But by this solemn distinction of calamities and punishments, B there is nothing so miserable, that either men or beasts can undergo, but when it serves their turn, it shall be only a calamity and no punishment, though it be said to be on purpose to shew Gods severity against the sins of the world. And this excellent notion of the beasts being punished for their own sins, is improved by him to the vindication of the Scape-Goat from being punished; because then, saith he, the most wicked and corrupt Goat should have been made choice of. As though all the design of that great day of expiation had been only to call the Children of Israel together with great solemnity; to let C them see, how a poor Goat must be punished for breaking the Laws which we do not know were ever made for them. I had thought our Adversaries had maintained that the Sacrifices (on the day of expiation at least) had represented and typified the Sacrifice which was to be offered up by Christ; and so Socinus and Crellius elsewhere contend: he need not therefore have troubled himself concerning the sins of the Goat, when it is expresly said, That the sins of the people were put on the head of the Goat; Whatever then the punishment Lev. 16. 21. were, it was on the account of the sins of the people, and not D his own. But Crellius urgeth against Grotius, that if the Scape-Goat had been punished for the expiation of the sins of the people, that should have been particularly expressed in Scripture, whereas nothing is said there at all of it, and that the throwing down the Scape-Goat from the top of the rock, was no part of the Primitive Institution, but one of the superstitions taken up by the Iews in after-times, because of the ominousness of the return of it; and although we should suppose (which is not probable) that it should dye by famine in the Wilderness, yet this was not the death for expiation, E which was to be by the shedding of blood. To this therefore I answer. 1. I do not insist on the customs of the later Jews to prove from thence any punishment designed by the primitive institution. For I shall easily yield, that many superstitions [Page] obtained among them afterwards about the Scape-Goat; A as the stories of the red list turning white upon the head of it, the booths and the causey made on purpose, and several other things mentioned in the Rabbinical Writers do manifest. But Cod. Ioma. tit. 6. yet it seems very probable from the Text it self, that the Scape-Goat was not carried into the Wilderness at large, but to a steep mountain there. For although we have commonly rendered Azazel by the Scape-Goat, yet according to the best of the Jewish Writers, as P. Fagius tell us, [...] doth not come from [...] a Goat, and [...] abiit; but is the name of a Mountain very steep and rocky near Mount Sinai, and therefore B probably called by the later Jews, [...] the name of a Rock: and to this purpose, it is observable that where we render it, and let him go for a Scape-Goat into the Wilderness in the Lev. 16. 10. Hebrew it is, [...] to send him to Azazel in the Wilderness: as the joyning the preposition [...] doth import, and the Arabick Version where-ever Azazel is mentioned, renders it by Mount Azaz: and the Chaldee and Syriack to Azazel; so that from hence, a carrying the Scape-Goat to a certain place may be inferred; but I see no foundation in the Text for the throwing it down from the rock C when it was there; and therefore I cannot think, but that if the punishment intended did lye in that, it would have been expresly mentioned in the solemnities of that day, which had so great an influence on the expiation of the sins of the people. 2. I answer, that the Scape-Goat was to denote rather the effect of the expiation, than the manner of obtaining it. For the proper expiation was by the shedding of blood, as the Apostle Heb. 9. 22. tells us; and thence the live Goat was not to have the sins of the people to bear away into the desert, till the High Priest Lev. 16. 20. had made an end of reconciling the Holy Place, and the Tabernacle D of the Congregation, and the Altar; and by the sprinkling of the blood of the other Goat which was the sin-offering for the people; which being done, he was to bring the V. 15. live Goat, and to lay his hands upon the head of it, and confess over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the Goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into V. 21. the Wilderness; and so the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited, and he shall let go the V. 22. Goat in the Wilderness. So that the former Goat noted the E way of expiation by the shedding of blood, and the latter the effect of it, viz. that the sins of the people were declared to be expiated by the sending the Goat charged with their sins into a desart place; and that their sins would not appear in the [Page] presence of God against them, any more than they expected, A that the Goat which was sent into the Wilderness should return among them. Which was the reason that afterwards they took so much care that it should not, by causing it to be thrown off from a steep rock; which was no sooner done; but notice was given of it very suddenly by the sounding of horns all over the Land. But the force of Socinus his argument from the Scape Goats bearing the sins of the people, that therefore that phrase doth not always imply the bea [...]ing of punishment, is taken off by Crellius himself, who tell us Crell. c. 1 Sect. 56. that the Scape-Goat is not said to bear the sins of the people in B the Wilderness; but only that it carried the sins of the people into the Wilderness, which is a phrase of another importance from that we are now discoursing of. As will now further appear from the places where it is spoken of concerning our Saviour, which we now come particularly to examine.

The first place insisted on by Grotius with a respect to Christ, is 1 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his §. 5. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated. Crell. c. 1. Sect. 35. own body on the tree, which, saith Crellius, is so far from proving that Christ did bear the punishment of our sins, that it doth not imply any sufferings that he underwent on the occasion C of them. He grants that [...] doth signifie to carry up, but withall (he saith) it signifies to take away; because that which is taken up, is taken away from the place where it was. Besides, he observes, that [...] doth answer to the Hebrew [...] he hath made to ascend, which is frequently rendred by it in the LXX. and sometimes by [...], but that Hebrew word doth often signifie to take away, where it is rendred in the Greek by one of those two words, 2 Sam. 21. 13. Iosh. 24. 32. Psal. 102. 25. Ezra. 1. 11. To which I answer, 1. That the signification of [...] in this place, must not be D taken from every sense the word is ever used so, but in that which the words out of which these are taken do imply; and in Isa. 53. 11. it doth not answer [...] but to [...] a word which by the confession of all is never properly used for taking away, but for bearing of a burden, and is used with a respect to the punishment of sin, Lament. 5. 7. Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have born their iniquities, where the same word is used; so that the signification of the word [...] here, must depend upon that in Isaiab, of which more afterward. 2. Granting that [...] doth answer E sometimes to the Hebrew [...] yet it makes nothing to Crellius his purpose, unless he can prove that [...] doth ever signifie the taking away a thing by the destruction of it; for where it answers to that word, it is either for the offering [Page] up of a Sacrifice, in which sense [...] is very frequently A used, as is confessed by Crellius; and in that sense it is no prejudice at all to our cause; for then it must be granted, that Christ upon the Cross is to be considered as a sacrifice for the sins of men; and so our sins were laid upon him as they were supposed to be on the Sacrifices under the Law, in order to the expiation of them, by the shedding their blood; and if our Adversaries would acknowledge this, the difference would not be so great between us; or else it is used for the removal of a thing from one place to another, the thing it self still remaining in being, as 2 Sam. 21. 13. And he made Sauls B bones to ascend, [...], he took them away, saith Crellius; true, but it is such a taking away, as is a bare removal; the thing still remaining; the same is to be said of Iosephs bones, Iosh. 24. 32. which are all the places where [...] is used; and although [...] may be sometimes taken in another sense, as Psal. 102. 25. yet nothing can be more unreasonable than such a way of arguing as this is; [...] saith Crellius signifies taking away; we demand his proof of it; is it that the word signifies so much of it self? No; that he grants it doth not. Is it that it is frequently used in the C Greek Version to render a word that properly doth signifie so? No; nor that neither. But how is it then? Crellius tells us, that it sometimes answers to a word that signifies to make to ascend: well, but doth that word signifie taking away? No; not constantly, for it is frequently used for a sacrifice: but doth it at any time signifie so? Yes; it signifies the removal of a thing from one place to another. Is that the sense then he contends for here? No; but how then? why [...] is used to render the same word that [...] doth, and [...] though it signifies too a bare removal, as Ezra 1. 11. yet Psal. 102. D 25. it is used for cutting off, [...], the Hebr. is, make me not to ascend in the midst of my days. But doth it here signifie utter destruction? I suppose not; but grant it, what is this to [...], when the LXX. useth not that word here, which for all that we know was purposely altered; so that at last [...] is far enough from any such signification as Crellius would fix upon it, unless he will assert, that Christs taking away our sins, was only a removal of them from Earth to Heaven. But here Grotius comes in to the relief of Crellius against himself; for in his Notes upon this place, though he E had before said, that the word was never used in the New Testament in that sense, yet he there saith, [...] is abstulit, for which he refers us to Heb. 9. 28. where he proceeds altogether as subtilly as Crellius had done before him, for he tells [Page] us [...] is put for [...] Numb. 14. 33. Deut. 14. 24. A Isa. 53. 12. but [...], i. e. [...] is put for [...], Lev. 10. 17. Num. 14. 18. A most excellent way of interpreting Scripture! considering the various significations of the Hebrew words, and above all of that [...] which is here mentioned. For according to this way of arguing, [...] shall signifie the same with [...], and [...], for [...] signifies all these, and is rendred by them in the Greek Version, so that by the same way that Grotius proves that [...] signifies [...], we can prove that [...] doth not signifie to take away, but to bear punishment; nay, [...] signifies the bearing punishment B in the strictest sense, Ezek. 16. 52, 54. and bearing sin in that sense, Ezek. 16. 58. Thou hast born thy lewdness, and thy abominations, [...] So that when [...] is more frequently used in this than in the other sense, why shall its signifying [...] at any time make [...] be taken in the same sense with that? Nay, I do not remember in any place where [...] is joyned with sin, but it signifies the punishment of it, so [...], Lev. 19. 8. to bear his iniquity, Lev. 20. 17. [...], bearing their iniquity in one verse is explained by being out off from among their people, in the next. And in the places cited C by Grotius, that Numb. 14. 33. hath been already shewed to signifie bearing the punishment of sin, and that Deut. 14. 24. is plainly understood of a Sacrifice, the other, Isa. 53. 12. will be afterwards made appear by other places in the same Chapter, to signifie nothing to this purpose. So that for all we can yet see, [...] must be taken either for bearing our sins as a sacrifice did under the Law, or the punishment of them; in either sense it serves our purpose, but is far enough from our Adversaries meaning.

But supposing we should grant them, that [...] may signifie D to take away, let us see what excellent sense they make of these §. 6. Crell. his sense examined. words of St. Peter. Do they then say, that Christ did take away our sins upon the Cross? No, they have a great care of that, for that would make the expiation of sins to have been performed there; which they utterly deny, and say, that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven, that there he might expiate sins. But doth not St. Peter say, that what was done by him here, was in his body on the tree: and they will not say, he carryed that with him to Heaven too. Well, but what then was the taking away of sin which belonged E to Christ upon the Cross? is it only to perswade men to live vertuously, and leave off their sins? This Socinus would have, and Crellius is ‘contented that it should Soc. deserv. l. 2. cap. 6. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 39. be understood barely of taking away sins, and not of [Page] the punishment of them, but only by way of accession and A consequence: but if it be taken (which he inclines more to) for the punishment, then (he saith) it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ, but of the effect: and yet a little after he saith, those words of Sect. 44. Christs bearing our sins, are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it, not including the effect of it in us; not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death, but that he did that by dying, upon which the taking away of sin would follow, or which had a great power for the doing it.’ So uncertain are our Adversaries, in affixing B any sense upon these words, which may attribute any effect at all, to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins, then they are only to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ, to perswade men to leave their sins; which we must have a care of understanding so, as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it; but only that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said, and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him, and if we obey him, we shall leave off our sins, whether Christ had died or C no: supposing his miracles had the same effect on us, which those of Moses had upon the Iews, which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death. But if this be all that was meant by Christs bearing our sins in his body on the tree; why might not St. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his cross too? for his death was an excellent example of patience, and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth, and that doctrine which he preached, was repentance and remission of sins: So that by this sense, there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ But taking D the other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins, we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ: Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment of sin, to the death of Christ on the Cross? yes, just as we may attribute Coesars subduing Rome, to his passing over Rubicon, because he took that in his way to the doing of it: so they make the death of Christ only as a passage, in order to expiation of sins, by taking away the punishment of them. For that shall not be actually perfected, they say, till his full deliverance of all those that obey him, from hell and the grave, E which will not be till his second coming. So that if we only take the body of Christ for his second coming, and the Cross of Christ, or the tree, for his Throne of Glory, then they will acknowledge, that Christ may very well be said, to take [Page]away sins in his own body on the tree: but if you take it in A any sense that doth imply any peculiar efficacy to the death of Christ, for all the plainness of St. Peters words, they by no means will admit of it.

But because Crellius urgeth Grotius with the sense of that place, Isa. 53. 11. out of which he contends these words are §. 7. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. Crell. c. 1. sect. 35. taken, and Crellius conceives he can prove there, that bearing is the same with taking away sin: We now come to consider, what force he can find from thence, f [...]r the justifying his assertion, That the bearing of sins, when attributed to Christ, doth not imply the punishment of them, but the taking B them away The words are, for he shall bear their iniquities. As to which Grotius observes, that the word [...] which signifies iniquity, is sometimes taken for the punishment of sin, 2 Kings 7. 9. and the verb [...] is to bear, and when ever it is joyned with sin or iniquity, in all languages, and especially the Hebrew, it signifies to suffer punishment; for although [...] may sometimes signifie to take away, [...] never does: so that this phrase can receive no other interpretation. Notwithstanding all which, Crellius attempts to prove, that [...] here, must be taken in a sense contrary to C the natural and perpetual use of the word; for which his first Crell. c. 1. sect. 44. argument is very infirm, viz. because it is mentioned after the death of Christ, and is therefore to be considered as the the reward of the other. Whereas it appears: 1. By the Prophets discourse, that he doth not insist on an exact methodical order, but dilates and amplifies things as he sees occasion: for Verse 9. he saith, He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; and Verse 10. he saith, Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: Will Crellius therefore say, that this must be consequent to his D death and burial? 2. The particle [...] may be here taken causally, as we render it, very agreeably to the sense; and so it gives an account of the fore-going clause, By his knowledge, shall my righteous servant justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities. And that this is no unusual acception of that particle, might be easily cleared from many places of Scripture if it were necessary; and from this very Prophet, as Isa. 39. 1. where [...] is the same with [...] 2 King 20. 12. and Isa. 64. 5. Thou art wroth, for we have sinned [...] where the same particle is made the causal of what went before. But E we need not insist upon this to answer Crellius, who elsewhere makes use of it himself, and says, They must be very ignorant of the Crell. c. 9. sect. 7. p. 463. Soc. Prae [...]. c. 14. sect. 6. Hebrew Tongue, who do not know, that the conjunction copulative is often taken causally; and so much is confessed by Socinus [Page] also, where he explains, that particle in one sense in the beginning A and causally in the middle of the verse: And the 2 Sam. 24. 1. Lords anger was kindled against Israel, [...] for he moved, &c. but if this will not do, he attempts to prove, That [...] in this very Chapter, hath the signification of taking away, v. 4. For he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows, which is applied by St. Matth. 8. 17. to bodily diseases, which our Saviour did not bear, but took away, as it is said in the foregoing verse; he healed all that were sick, on which those words come in, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, &c. To which I answer: 1. It is granted by our Adversaries, B that St. Mathew in those words, doth not give the full sense of the Prophet, but only applies that by way of accommodation, to bodily diseases, which was chiefly intended for the sins of men. And in a way of accommodation it is not unusual to strain words beyond their genuine and natural signification, or what was intended primarily by the person who spake them. Would it be reasonable for any to say that [...] signifies to give, because that place Psal. 68, 18. where the word by all is acknowledged to signifie to receive, is rendred to give, Eph. 4. 8. so that admitting another sense of the C word here, as applied to the cure of bodily diseases, it doth not from thence follow, that this should be the meaning of the word in the primary sense intended by the Prophet. 2. The word as used by St. Matthew, is very capable of the primary and natural sense; for St. Matthew retain words of the same signification, with that which we contend for, [...] and [...], neither of which doth signifie taking away, by causing a thing not to be. So that all that is implied hereby, is the pains and trouble which our Saviour took in the healing of the sick. For to that end, as Grotius well observes D upon that place, the circumstances are mentioned, That it was Matth. 8. 16. at even, and multitudes were brought to him in St. Matthew, that after Sunset all that were diseased were brought, and all the City was gathered together at the door, in St. Mark; That he departed Ma [...]k 1. 32, 33. Luke 4. 42. not till it was day, in St. Luke; that we might the better understand how our Saviour did bear our griefs, because the pains he took in healing them were so great. And here I cannot but observe, that Grotius in his notes on that place, continued still in the same mind he was in, when he writ against Socinus; for he saith, ‘Those words may either E refer to the diseases of the body, and so they note the pains he took in the cure of them; or to our sins, and so they were fulfilled when Christ by suffering upon the cross, did obtain remission of sins for us, as St. Peter saith,’ [Page] 1 Pet. 2. 24. But upon what reason the Annotations on that A place come to be so different from his sense expressed here, long after Crellius his answer, I do not understand. But we are sure he declared his mind, as to the main of that Controversie, to be the same, that it was when he writ his Book which Crellius answered; as appears by two Letters of his to Vossius, not long since published; and he utterly disowns the charge of E [...]ist. Eccle. p. 747, 748. Discuss. p. 16, 17. Socinianism, as a calumny in his discussion, the last Book he ever writ.

But we are no further obliged to vindicate Grotius, than he did the truth; which we are sure he did in the vindication B §. 8. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. vindicated. of the 53 of Isaiah, from Socinus his interpretations, notwithstanding what Crellius hath objected against him. We therefore proceed to other Verses in the same Chapter insisted on by Grotius, to prove That Christ did bear the punishments of our sins, v. 6, 7. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all: It is required, and he was afflicted, as Grotius renders those words. Socinus makes a twofold sense of the former De Servat. l. 2. c. 5. clause; the first is, That God by or with Christ did meet with our iniquities; the latter, That God did [...]ake our iniquities to mee [...] with Christ. The words saith Grotius, will C not bear the former interpretation, for the verb [...] being in Hiphil, must import a double action, and so it must not be, That God by him did meet with our sins, but that God did make our sins to meet upon him. To which Crellius replies, That words in Hiphil are sometimes used intransitively; but Crell. c. 1. sect. 52. can he produce any instance in Scripture, where this word joyned with [...] and [...] is so taken? for in the last ver [...]e of the Chapter, the construction is different: And [...] uncertain way of interpreting Scripture will this be, [...] every Anomalous signification, and rare use of a word, shall be made D use of to take away such a sense as is most agreeable to the design of the place. For that sense we contend for, is not only enforced upon the most natural importance of these words, but upon the agreeableness of them with so many other expressions of this Chapter, that Christ did bear our iniquities, and was wounded for our transgressions, and that his soul was made an offering for sin: to which it is very suitable, that as the iniquities of the people were (as it were) laid upon the head of the Sacrifice; so it should be said of Christ, who was to offer up himself for the sins of the world. And the Iews E themselves by this phrase do understand the punishment either for the sins of the people, which Iosias underwent, or which the people themselves suffered, by those who interpret this prophesie of them. To which purpose, Aben Ezra observes, [Page] that iniquity is here put for the punishment of it, as 1 Sam. A 28. 10. & Lam. 4. 6. But Socinus mistrusting the incongruity of this Interpretation, flies to another; viz. That God did make our iniquities to meet with Christ: And this we are willing to admit of, if by that they mean, That Christ underwent the punishment of them; as that phrase must naturally import, for what otherwise can our iniquities meeting with him signifie? For the word [...] taken properly (as Socinus acknowledgeth it ought to be, when he rejects Pagnins Interpretation of making Christ to interceed for our iniquities) signifies, either to meet with one by chance, or out of kindness, B or else for an encounter, with an intention to destroy that which it meets with. So Iudg. 8. 21. Rise thou [...] [...] LXX irrue in nos, fall upon us; i. e. run upon us with thy sword, and kill us, Iudg. 15. 12. Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me your selves; where the same word is used, and they explain the meaning of it in the next words, v. 13. We will not kill thee, Amos 5. 19. as if a man did flee from a Lyon, and a Bear met him, [...] i. e. with a design to kill him. Now I suppose they will not say that our sins met with Christ by Chance, since it is said, that C God laid on him, &c. nor out of kindness; it must be there fore out of enmity; and with a design to destroy him, and so our sins cannot be understood as Socinus and Crellius would have them, as the meer occasions of Christs death: but as the proper impulsive cause of it. Whether the following word [...] be taken with a respect to sin, and so it properly signifies It is required, or with a respect to the person, and so it may signifie he was oppressed, is not a matter of that consequence, which we ought to contend about; if it be proved that Christs oppression had only a respect to sin, as the punishment D of it. Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter, vers. 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. In which Grotius saith ‘the word [...] doth not signifie any kind of affliction, but such as hath the nature of punishment, either for example or instruction; but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ, the former must. Crellius’ thinks to escape from this, by acknowledging, that the Crell. c. 1. Sect. 57. sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin; but if it be such a respect to sin, which makes what Christ underwent a punishment E (which is only proper in this case) it is as much as we contend for. This therefore he is loth to abide by; and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin, which he thinks to prove [Page] from St. Pauls words, 2 Cor. 6. 9. We are chastised, but not A given over to death; but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear, 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened, did not think they did it without any respect to a fault; but they supposed them to be justly punished; and this is that we plead for, that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it, doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it. 2. This is far from the present purpose, for the chastisement there mentioned is oposed to death, as chastened, but not killed; whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death, that these cannot be B supposed to be meerly designed for instruction, and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment. The other place Psal. 73. 14. is yet more remote from the business; for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others; yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God, as not to deserve chastisement from him.

But Crellius offers further to prove that Christs death must be considered as a bare affliction, and not as a [...], or exemplary §. 9. Whether Christs death be a proper. [...], and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin. punishment, because ‘in such a punishment the guilty C themselves are to be punished, and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty, but in Christs sufferings it was quite contrary, for the innocent was punished, and the guilty have the benefit of it: and yet (he saith) if we should grant that Christs sufferings were a [...], that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment.’ To which I answer, That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment, may properly be called so: but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment. D For the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself, are, ‘That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers.’ Now the question is, whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins, these sufferings of his may deter us from the practice of sin or no? And therefore in opposition to Crellius, I shall prove these two things: 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins, there was a sufficient argument to deter us from the practice of sin. 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our E sins, they could not have that force to deter men from the practice of it: for he after asserts, That Christs sufferings might be a [...] to us, though they were no punishment of sin. 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin, [Page] is a proper [...] or hath a great force to deter men from A the practice of sin: and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves, and because the example is much more considerable, than if we had suffered our selves. 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed. For why are men deterred from sin, by seeing others punished; but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment; and therefore where the same reason holds, the same ends may be as properly obtained. If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of Gods dominion over his life; what imaginable force could this have to B deter men from sin, which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it? But when we say, that God laid our iniquities upon him, that he suffered not upon his own account but ours, that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent, what argument can be more proper to deter men from sin than this is? For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God, that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honor, and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it. Hereby they C see what a value God hath for his Laws, which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders, without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son. Hereby they see, that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God; but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government, that unless the Honor and Majesty of God, as to his Laws and Government may be preserved, the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward. Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise D these sufferings of the Son of God for them; for nothing can then remain, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries. So that, here all the weighty arguments concur which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deter them from their sins. For if God did thus by the green tree, what will be do by the dry? If he who was so innocent in himself, so perfectly holy, suffered so much on the account of our sins; what then may those expect to suffer, who have no innocency at all to plead, and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins? But if it be replied E by Crellius, that it is otherwise among men: I answer, that we do not pretend in all things to parallel the sufferings of Christ for us, with any sufferings of men for one another. But yet we add, that even among men the punishments inflicted [Page] on those who were themselves innocent as to the cause of A them, may be as exemplary as any other. And the greater appearance of severity there is in them, the greater terror they strike into all offenders. As Childrens losing their estates and honors, or being banished for their Parents treasons in which they had no part themselves. Which is a proper punishment on them of their Fathers faults, whether they be guilty or no? and if this may be just in men, why not in God? If any say, that the Parents are only punished in the Children, he speaks that which is contradictory to the common sense of mankind; for punishment doth suppose sense or feeling of it; and in this B case the Parents are said to be punished, who are supposed to be dead and past feeling of it, and the Children who undergo the smart of it must not be said to be punished; though all things are so like it, that no person can imagine himself in that condition, but would think himself punished, and severely too. If it be said, that these are calamities indeed, but they are no proper punishments, it may easily be shewed that distinction will not hold here. Because these punishments were within the design of the Law, and were intended for all the ends of punishments, and therefore must have the nature of them. C For therefore the Children are involved in the Fathers punishment on purpose to deter others from the like actions. There are some things indeed that Children may fall into by occasion of their Fathers guilt, which may be only calamities to them, because they are necessary consequents in the nature of the thing, and not purposely designed as a punishment to them. Thus, being deprived of the comfort and assistance of their Parents, when the Law hath taken them off by the hand of justice: this was designed by the Law as a punishment to the Parents, and as to the Children it is only a necessary consequent D of their punishment. For otherwise the Parents would have been punished for the Childrens faults, and not the Children only involved in that which unavoidably follows upon the Parents punishment. So that Crellius is very much mistaken either in the present case of our Saviours punishment, or in the general reason of exemplary punishments, as among men. But the case of our Saviour is more exemplary, when we consider the excellency of his person, though appearing in our nature, when no meaner sufferings would satisfie, than of so transcendent a nature as he underwent, though he E were the Eternal Son of God, this must make the punishment much more exemplary, than if he were considered only as our Adversaries do, as a meer man. So that the dignity of his person under all his sufferings may justly [Page] add a greater consideration to deter us from the practice of sin, A which was so severely punished in him, when he was pleased to be a Sacrifice for our sins. From whence we see that the ends of a [...] are very agreeable with the sufferings of Christ considered as a punishment for sin.

We now consider whether as Crellius asserts, supposing Christs death were no punishment, it could have these effects § 10. Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, if they were no punishment of sin. Crell. c. 1. p. 69. upon mens minds or no? Yes, he saith, it might, because by his sufferings we might see how severely God would punish wicked and obstinate persons. Which being a strange riddle at the first hearing it, viz. that by the sufferings of an innocent B person without any respect to sin as the cause of them: we should discern Gods severity against those who are obstinate in sin; we ought the more diligently to attend to what is said for the clearing of it. ‘First, saith he, If God spared not his own most innocent and holy and only Son, than whom nothing was more dear to him in Heaven or Earth, but exposed him to so cruel and ignominious a death; how great and severe sufferings may we think God will inflict on wicked men, who are at open defiance with him?’ I confess my self not subtle enough to apprehend the force of this C argument, viz. If God dealt so severely with him who had no sin either of his own or others to answer for; therefore he will deal much more severely with those that have. For Gods severity considered without any respect to sin, gives rather encouragement to sinners, than any argument to deter them from it. For the natural consequence of it is, that God doth act arbitrarily, without any regard to the good or evil of mens actions; and therefore it is to no purpose to be sollicitous about them. For upon the same account that the most innocent person suffers most severely from him, for D all that we know, the more we strive to be innocent, the more severely we may be dealt with, and let men sin, they can be but dealt severely with, all the difference then is, one shall be called punishments, and the other calamities, but the severity may be the same in both. And who would leave off his sins meerly to change the name of punishments into that of calamities? And from hence it will follow, that the differences of good and evil, and the respects of them to punishment and reward, are but aiery and empty things; but that God really in the dispensation of things to men, hath no regard E to what men are or do, but acts therein according to his own Dominion, whereby he may dispose of men how or which way he pleases. If a Prince had many of his Subjects in open rebellion against him, and he should at that time [Page] make his most obedient and beloved, Son to be publickly exposed A to all manner of indignities, and be dishonoured and put to death by the hands of those rebels; could any one imagine that this was designed as an exemplary punishment to all rebels, to let them see the danger of rebellion? No, but would it not rather make them think him a cruel Prince, one that would punish innocency as much as rebellion; and that it was rather better to stand at defiance, and become desperate, for it was more dangerous to be beloved than hated by him, to be his Son than his declared Enemy? So that insisting on the death of Christ as it is considered as a [...], (for of B that we speak now) there is no comparison between our Adversaries hypothesis and ours; but, saith Crellius, the consequence is not good on our side, if Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, therefore they shall suffer much more who continue in sin, for Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world; but they suffer only for their own, and what they have deserved themselves. To which I answer, that the argument is of very good force upon our hypothesis, though it would not be upon theirs. For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffered, then there could be no argument drawn from C his sufferings to ours, but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments: but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature, there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ, as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings; and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold. For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them. And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere, that the dignity of the person is Crell. c. 8. sect. 43. to be considered in exemplary punishment, and that a lesser D punishment of one that is very great, may do much more to deter men from sin, than a greater punishment of one much less. But he yet further urgeth, that the severity of God Crell. c. 1. sect. 57, [...]0. against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ, because Gods hatredagainst sin is discovered therein. But if we ask how Gods hatred against sin, is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin, and not rather his hatred of innocency, if no respect to sin were had therein? he answers, that Gods hatred against sin was manifested, in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin. For E answer to which, we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person, designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin; and let any one tell me, what hatred of sin can possibly be discovered, in proposing the sufferings of a [Page] most innocent person to them without any consideration of A sin as the cause of those sufferings? If it be said, that the Doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin; and that God suffered his Son to dye to confirm this Doctrine, and thereby shewed his hatred to sin. I answer, 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business, for we are not now arguing about the design of Christs Doctrine, nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that, but as a [...], and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them, to draw us from sin, by discovering Gods hatred to it. 2. The Doctrine of Christ according to their B hypothesis, discovers much less of Gods hatred to sin than ours doth. For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour, if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives; if there be no such thing as such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin committed; if the punishment of sin depend barely upon Gods will; and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering, as the most guilty; let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much Gods abhorrency C of sin, as asserting the necessity of vindicating Gods honour to the World, upon the breach of his Laws, if not by the suffering of the offenders themselves, yet of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the expiation of sin, by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities, so as upon consideration of his sufferings, he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience, as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins; and eternal life. So that if the discovery of Gods hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it, we assert upon the former reasons, that much more is done upon our D Doctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ, than can be upon theirs. So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christs death may be a [...], and that this doth imply, that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin.

The next Series of places which makes Christs sufferings § 11. Grotius his arguments from Christ's being made sin and a curse for us defined against Crellius. to be a punishment for sin, are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us: which we now design to make clear, ought to be understood in no other sense; for as Grotius saith, ‘As the Jews sometimes use sin, for the punishment of sin; as appears, besides other places, by Zach. 14. E 19. Gen. 4. 13. so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin, by the name of sin; as the Latins use the word Piaculum, both for the fault, and for him that suffers for it. Thence under the Law, an expiatory Sacrifice for [Page] sin, was called sin, Levit. 4. 3, 29—5. 6. Psal. 40. 7. A Which way of speaking Esaias followed, speaking of Christ, Esai. 53. 10. [...] he made his soul sin, i. e. liable to the punishment of it. To the same purpose St. Paul, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. To which Crellius replies, ``That as there is no necessity, that by the name of sin, when applied to sufferings, Crell. cap. 1. sect. 60. any more should be implied, than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin, no more is there when it is applied to the person; nay, much less, for he saith, ``No more is required B to this, but that he should be handled as sinners use to be, and undergo the matter of punishment, without any respect to sin, either as the cause or occasion of it. So he saith, The name Sinner is used, 1 King. 1. 21. and in St. Paul, the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood, as of righteousness in the latter; and as we are said to be righteousness in him, when God deals with us as with righteous persons, so Christ was said to be sin for us, when he was dealt with as a sinner. And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so called, not with a respect to the punishment of C sin, but because they were offered upon the account of sin, and were used for taking away the guilt of it, or because men were bound to offer them, so that they sinned if they neglected it. So that all that is meant by Esaias and St. Paul is, That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice, or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners only by right undergo.’ But let Crellius or any others of them tell me, if the Scripture had intended to express, that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins, how was it possible to do it more Emphatically than it is done by these expressions D (the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered) not only by saying, that Christ did bear our sins, but, that himself was made sin for us? those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin. Let them produce any one instance in Scripture, where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin? that place 1 King. 1. 21. is very far from it; for in all probability, the design of Bathsheba in making Solomon King was already discovered, which was the reason that Adonijah his elder Brother declaring himself King, invited not him with the rest of the E Kings sons: All that she had for Solomons succession, was a secret promise and oath of David; and therefore she urgeth him now to declare the succession, v. 20. Otherwise, she saith, when David should dye, I and my son Solomon shall be accounted[Page]offenders; i. e. saith Crellius, We shall be handled as A offenders, we shall be destroyed: But surely not without the supposition of a fault; by them which should inflict that punishment upon them: The plain meaning is, they should be accused of Treason, and then punished accordingly. But we are to consider, that still with a respect to them, who were the inflicters, a fault or sin is supposed as the reason of their punishment, either of their own or others. But of our Saviour it is not said, That he should be counted as an offender by the Iews; for although that doth not take away his innocency, yet it supposeth an accusation of something, which in it self B deserves punishment. But in Esai. 53. 10. it is said, He made his soul sin; and 2 Cor. 5. 21. That God made him sin for us, which must therefore imply, not being dealt with by men only as a sinner, but that with a respect to him who inflicted the punishment, there was a consideration of sin as the reason of it. We do not deny but Gods suffering him to be dealt with as a sinner by men, is implied in it, for that was the method of his punishment designed; but we say further, that the reason of that permission in God, doth suppose some antecedent cause of it: For God would never have suffered his only C Son, to be so dealt with by the hands of cruel men, unless he had made himself an offering for sin; being willing to undergo those sufferings, that he might be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world. And although Socinus will not yield, That by being made sin for us should be understood Soc. l. 1. c. 8. Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice for sin; yet Crellius is contented it should be so taken in both places: Which if he will grant, so as by vertue of that Sacrifice, the guilt of sin is expiated, we shall not contend with him about the reasons, why those Sacrifices were called sins, although the most proper D and genuine must needs be that, which is assigned by the Law, that the sins of the people were supposed to be laid upon them, and therefore they were intended for the expiation of them: But it is very unreasonable to say; That Expiatory Sacrifices were called sins, because it would have been a sin to neglect them: For on the same account, all the other Sacrifices must have been called so too; for it was a sin to neglect any where God required them, and so there had been no difference between Sacrifices for sin and others. To that reason of Crellius, from our being made righteous, because dealt with as such, E to Christs being made sin only, because dealt with as a sinner, we need no more than what this parallel will afford us; For as Crellius would never say, that any are dealt with as righteous persons, who are not antecedently supposed to be so; [Page] so by his own Argument, Christ being dealt with as a sinner, A must suppose guilt antecedent to it; and since the Apostle declares it was not his own, in those words, Who knew no sin, it follows that it must be the consideration of ours, which must make him be dealt with as a sinner by him, who made him to be sin for us. But to suppose that Christ should be said to be made sin, without any respect to sin, is as much as if the Latins should call any one Scelus, and mean thereby a very honest man; or a Piaculum, without any supposition of his own or others guilt. But we are to consider, that the sufferings of Christ, seeming at first so inconsistent with that relation B to God as his only Son, which the Apostles assert concerning him, they were obliged to vindicate his innocency as to men, and yet withal to shew, that with a respect to God, there was sufficient reason for his permission of his undergoing these sufferings. That he knew no sin, was enough to clear his innocency as to men; but then the question will be asked, If he were so innocent, why did God suffer all those things to come upon him? Did not Abraham plead of old with God, That he would not slay the righteous with the wicked, because Gen. 18. 25. it was repugnant to the righteousness of his nature to do so; C That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee; shall not the Iudge of all the earth do right? How then comes God to suffer the most perfect innocency to be dealt with so, as the greatest sins could not have deserved worse from men? Was not his righteousness the same still? And Abraham did not think the distinction of calamities and punishments, enough to vindicate Gods proceedings, if the righteous should have been dealt withall as the wicked. And if that would hold for such a D measure of righteousness as might be supposed in such who were not guilty of the great abominations of those places, that it should be enough, not only to deliver themselves, but the wicked too; how comes it that the most perfect obedience of the Son of God, is not sufficient to excuse him from the greatest sufferings of Malefactors? But if his sufferings had been meerly from men, God had been accountable only for the bare permission; but it is said, that he fore-ordained and determined these things to be, that Christ himself complained, that God had forsaken him; and here, that he made E him sin for us: and can we imagine all this to be without any respect to the guilt of sin, as the cause of it? Why should such an expression be used of being made sin? might not many others have served sufficiently to declare the indignities [Page] and sufferings he underwent, without such a phrase as A seems to reflect upon Christs innocency? If there had been no more in these expressions than our Adversaries imagine, the Apostles were so careful of Christs honour, they would have avoided such ill-sounding expressions as these were; and not have affected Hebraisms, and uncouth forms of speech, to the disparagement of their Religion. But this is all which our Adversaries have to say, where words are used by them out of their proper sense, that the Prophets and Apostles affected tricks of wit, playing with words, using them sometimes in one sense, and presently quite in another. So B Crellius saith of Esaiah, That he affects little elegancies of words and verbal allusions, which makes him use words Crell. c. 1. sect. 57. sometimes out of their proper and natural sense; thence he tells us, The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements, though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them: And from this liberty of interpreting, they make words (without any other reason, than that they serve for their purpose) be taken in several senses in the same verse: For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohns Gospel, makes the World be taken in three several senses: He was in the World, So [...]i [...]. ex [...]l [...]cat. 1 cap. Ioh. v. 10. C there it is taken, saith he, for the men of the world in general: The world was made by him, there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel: and, the world knew him not, there it must be taken in neither of the former senses, but for the wicked of the world: What may not one make of the Scripture, by such a way of interpreting it? But by this we have the less reason to wonder, that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that D hangeth on a tree: In which he doth acknowledge by the curse, in the first clause to be meant, the punishment of sin, but not in the second: And the reason he gives for it is, amavit enim Socin. de C [...]isto servat. l 2. c. 1. Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse. St. Paul affected playing with the word curse, understanding it first in a proper, and then a Metaphorical sense. But it is plain, that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words: Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically, when he saith, that Christ was made a curse for us; i. e. by a bare allusion of the name, without a correspondency in the E thing it self; and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse, but was not so: but St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation, but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us. He therefore [Page] tells us, what it was which Christ did redeem us from, A The curse of the Law; and how he did it, by being not only made a curse, but a curse for us; i. e. not by being hateful to God, or undergoing the very same curse, which we should have done; which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense; but that the death of Christ was to be considered, not as a bare separation of soul and body, but as properly poenal, being such a kind of death, which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer; by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead, he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of B the Law of God. And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews, unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins; or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal, therefore the intention of the punishment, could reach no further than the Law did; but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham, That it should come upon the Gentils also; and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to, were not Iews, but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law C and Gospel together: that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius Crell. Annot. in loc. would have it, that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant, and so take away the obligation of the Law; (for to what end was the curse mentioned for that? What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine? and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses?) but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins, whether inforced by the Law of Moses, D or the Law written in their hearts, which tells the consciences of sinners, that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death, and therefore under the curse of the Law.

We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ, do §. 12. The particles [...] being joyned to sins, and relating to sufferings, do imply those sufferings to be the punishment of sin. imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin. Not that we insist on the force of those particles [...] and [...], as though of themselves they did imply this (for we know they are of various significations according to the E nature of the matter they are joyned with) but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together, do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins. Thus it is said of Christ, that he dyed, [...] [Page] for our sins, [...], that he suffered once [...], that Rom. 4. 25. 1 Cor. 15. 3. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 10 12. Crell. c. 1. Sect. 6. A he gave himself, [...], that he offered a Sacrifice [...]. To which Crellius replies, ‘That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings, may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause, they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings, if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end; but if it should be granted, that those phrases being joyned with sufferings, Sect. 14. p. 17. do always imply a meritorious cause, yet it doth not follow, it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it.’ To this a short answer will at present serve: for, B It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings: so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give; and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might; so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner, but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give. If it had been said in the plainest terms, that Christs death was a punishment for our sins, they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these; C ‘they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis, and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them; and though punishment were sometimes used properly, yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense.’ And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine; he tells us plainly, ‘That Socin. de servat. l. 3. c. 6. if our Doctrine were not only once, but frequently mentioned in Scripture; yet he would not therefore believe the D thing to be so as we suppose. For, saith he, seeing the thing it self cannot be, I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words; and draw forth such a sense from them, as is most consistent with it self and the tenor of the Scripture.’ But for all his talking of the tenor of the Scripture, by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms, he will do many, and so the tenor of the Scripture shall be never against him: and by this we find, that the main strength of our Adversaries is not pretended to lye in the Scriptures; all the care they have of them is only to reconcile them if possible E with their hypothesis; for they do not deny but that the natural force of the words doth imply what we contend for; but because they say the Doctrine we assert is inconsistent with reason, therefore all their design is to find out any other possible [Page] meaning which they therefore assert to be true, because A more agreeable to the common reason of mankind. This therefore is enough for our present purpose, that if it had been the design of Scripture to have expressed our sense, it could not have done it in plainer expressions than it hath done, that no expressions could have been used, but the same arts of our Adversaries might have been used to take off their force, which they have used to those we now urge against them, and that setting aside the possibility of the thing, the Scripture doth very fairly deliver the Doctrine we contend for; or, supposing in point of reason there may be arguments enough to B make it appear possible, there are Scriptures enough to make it appear true. C D E

CHAP. III. A

[Page]

The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us, the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason. The debate managed upon point of reason. The grand difficulty enquired into, and manifested by our Adversaries concessions, not to lie in the greatness of Christs sufferings, or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them, or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults: or in all cases B unjust: the cases wherein Crellius allows it, instanced. From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause. The arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins. Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined. Of the relation between desert and punishment. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions. An answer to Crellius his Objections. What it is to suffer undeservedly. Crellius his mistake in the state of the question. The instances of Scripture considered. In C what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins. Ezec. 18. 20. explained at large. Whether the guilty being freed from the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no? Crellius his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered. Why among men the offenders are not sreed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished. The release of the party depends on the terms of the sureties suffering, therefore deliverance not ipso facto. No necessity of such a translation in criminal, as is in pecuniary matters. D

HAving gained so considerable concessions from our §. 1. The ma [...]ter debated in point of reason. Adversaries concerning the places of Scripture, we come now to debate the matter in point of reason. And if there appear to be nothing repugnant in the Nature of the thing, or to the justice of God, then all their loud clamors will come to nothing; for on that they fix, when they talk the most of our Doctrine being contrary to reason. This therefore we now come more closely to examine, in order E to which we must carefully enquire what it is, they lay the charge of injustice in God upon, according to our belief of Christs sufferings being a punishment for our sins.

[Page] 1. It is not, That the offenders themselves do not undergo A the full punishment of their sins. For they assert, that there is no necessity at all that the offenders should be punished from any punitive justice in God: for they eagerly contend that God may freely pardon the sins of men: if so, then it can be no injustice in God not to punish the offenders according to the full desert of their sins.

2. It is not, that God upon the sufferings of Christ doth pardon the sins of men: for they yield that God may do this without any charge of injustice, and with the greatest demonstration of his kindness. For they acknowledge, that the sufferings of B Christ are not to be considered as a bare antecedent condition to pardon, but that they were a moving cause as far as the obedience of Christ in suffering was very acceptable to God.

3. It is not, in the greatness or matter of the sufferings of Christ. For they assert the same which we do. And therefore I cannot but wonder Ce tum est Christum innocentissimum à Deo gravissimis cruciatibus, ipsaque morte suissé assectum; cum [...]on in materiâ poenae absolute & per se consideratá, adeoque etiam in eâ afflictione à quâ poe [...]ae forma abe [...]t, injuria residere à nobis dicatur. Crel. c. 4. Sect. 3. Potuit autem id Deus facere, atque adeo fec [...]t, [...]re dominii, q [...]od i [...] Christi vitam ac corpus habebat; accedente praesertimipsius Christi co [...]s [...]rsu. Id. Ib. Sect. 4. to meet sometimes with those strange out-cries of our making God cruel in the punishing of his son for us: for what do we assert that Christ suffered, which they C do not assert too? Nay doth it not look much more like cruelty in God to lay those sufferings upon him without any consideration of sin? as upon their hypothesis he doth; than to do it supposing he bears the punishment of our iniquities, which is the thing we plead for. They assert all those sufferings to be lawful on the account of Gods dominion, which according to them must cease to be so on the supposition of a meritorious cause. But however from this it appears, that it was not unjust that Christ should suffer those things which he did for us: D the question then is, whether it were unjust that he should suffer the same things, which he might lawfully do on the account of dominion with a respect to our sins as the cause of them.

4. As to this, they acknowledge, that it is not, that the sufferings of Christ were occasioned by our sins, or that our sins were the bare impulsive cause of those sufferings. For they both consess in general, that one mans sins may be the occasion of anothers punishment, so far that he might have escaped punishment, if the others sins had not been the impulsive cause, E of it. And therefore Crellius in the general state of this question, would not have it, whether it be the unjust to punish one Quod si ex thesi speciale sacere velis general [...]m, [...] erit, i [...]justum esse punire innocentem, quacunque tandem de causá idsiat; non vern simpli i [...]r, puaire quem, iam ob alie [...]a delicta; id enim concedi potest non s [...]mper esse inj stum. Crel. c. 4 Sect. 3. [Page] for anothers sins; for that he acknowledges it is not, but whether, A for any cause whatsoever it be just to punish an innocent person? And likewise in particular of Christ, they confess, that our sins were the impulsive cause, and the occasion of his sufferings.

5. It is not, that there is so necessary a relation, between guilt and punishment, that it cannot be called a punishment which is inflicted on an innocent person. For Crellius, after a long dicourse of the difference of afflictions and punishments, doth acknowledge, ‘That it is not of the nature of punishment, that the person who is to be punished, should really deserve the C [...] ne illud quide [...] ad naturam poenae req [...]iratur, ut is ipse, q [...]i p [...]ie id [...]s est, poenam reverà fu [...] rit commeritus, Id. Sect. 5. punishment; and afterwards when Grotius urgeth, that B though it be essential to punishment, that it be inflicted for sin, yet it is not, that it be inflicted upon him who hath himself sinned, which he shews, by the similitude of rewards, which though necessary to be given in consideration of service, may yet be given to others besides the person himself upon his account’. All this Crellius acknowledgeth; who saith, ‘They do not make it necessary to the nature, but to the justice of punishment, that it be inflicted upon none but the person who hath offended. So by his own Confession, it is not against the nature of punishment, that one man suffer Poena quidem simpliciter ia innocentem cadit, justa no [...] cadit. Crell. c. 4. Sect. 28. C for anothers faults.’ From whence it follows, that all Socinus his arguments signifie nothing, which are drawn from the impossibility of the thing, that one man should be punished for anothers faults; for Crellius grants the thing to be possible, but denies it to be just; yet not absolutely neither, but with some restrictions and limitations. For,

6. It is not, but that there may be sufficient causes assigned in §. 2. In what cases Crellius grants some may be lawfully punished for the sins of others. some particular cases; wherein it may be just for God to punish some for the sins of others. For Crellius himself hath assigned divers. ‘When there is such a neer conjunction between D them, that one may be said to be punished in the punishment of another: as Parents in their Children and Posterity, Kings in their Subjects, or the body of a State in its Members, Q [...]ia Deu [...] h [...]c p [...]i [...]do ill [...]m q [...]oq [...]e alterum ob cujus peccati cum dicitur [...]rt, si [...]l p [...]nire possit, ob arctio [...]em [...] i [...]ter i [...]os i [...]te [...]ce [...]at co [...] [...]. Crell. [...]b. sect. 5. Crell. p. 242. either in the most, or the most principal, though the fewest:’ but we are to consider, how far he doth extend this way of punishment of some in others. 1. At the greatest distance of time, if they have been of the same Nation; for he extends it to the utmost degree of Gods patience towards a people; ‘For saith he, God doth not presently punish as soon as they have sinned; but spares for a great while, and forbears, iu expectation E of their repentance, in the mean while a great many guilty persons die, and seem to have escaped punishment. But at last the time of Gods patience being past, he punisheth their Posterity by exacting the fu l punishment of their sins upon [Page] them, and by this means punisheth their Ancestors t [...]o, A and punisheth their sins in their punishment; for, saith he, all that people are reckoned for one one man of several Ages, and that punishment which is taken of the last, may be for the sins of the first, for the conjunction and succession of them: of which we have an example, saith he, in the destructiof Hierusalem.’ By which we see a very remote conjunction, and a meer similitude in comparing a succession of Ages in a people with those in a man, may (when occasion serves) be made use of to justifie Gods punishing one Generation of men for the sins of others that have been long before. 2. When B sins are more secret, or less remarkable, which God might not punish, unless an occasion were given from others sins impelling him to it; but because God would punish one very near them he therefore punisheth them, that in their punishment he might punish the other. Or in case sins spread through a Family or a people, or they are committed by divers persons at sundry times, which God dot [...] [...] severally punish, but sometimes then, when the Head of a People or Family hath done something which remarkably deserves punishment, whom he will punish in those he is related to, and therefore generally punisheth C the whole Family or People. 3. That which may be a meer exercise of dominion as to some, may be a proper punishment to others; as in the case of Infants, being taken away for their Parents sins; For God, as to the Children, he saith, useth only an act of dominion, but the punishment only redounds to the Parents, who lose them; and though this be done for the very end of punishment, yet he denies, that it hath the nature of Punishment in any but the Parents. 4. That punishment may be intended for those who can have no sense at all of it; as Crellius asserts in the case of Sauls sons, 2 Sam. 21. 8, 14. that D Crell. ib. sect. 11. sect. 19. the punishment was mainly intended for Saul, who was aheady dead. From these concessions of Crellius in this case, we may take notice, 1. That a remote conjunction may be sufficient for a translation of penalty, viz. from one Generation to another. 2. That sins may be truly said to be punished in others, when the offenders themselves may escape punishment, thus the sins of Parents in their Children, and Princes in their Subjects. 3. That an act of dominion in some may be designed as a proper punishment to others. 4. That the nature of punishment is not to be measured by the sense of it. Now E upon these concessions, though our Adversaries will not grant, that Christ was properly punished for our sins, yet they cannot deny but that we may very properly be said to be punished for our sins in Christ, and if they will yield us this, the [Page] other may be a strife about words. For surely there may be A easily imagined as great a conjunction between Christ and us, as between the several Generations of the Iews, and that last which was punished in the destruction of Hierusalem: and though we escape that punishment which Christ did undergo, yet we might have our sins punished in him, as well as Princes theirs in their Subjects, when they escape themselves; or rather as Subjects in an innocent Prince, who may suffer for the faults of his people; if it be said, that these are acts of meer dominion as to such a one, that nothing hinders but granting it, yet our sins may be said to be punished in him; as B well as Parents sins are punished properly in meer acts of dominion upon their Children; if it be laid, that can be no punishment where there is no sense at all of it, that is fully taken off by Crellius; for surely we have as great a sense of the sufferings of Christ, as the first Generation of the Iews had of the suffering of the last, before the fatal destruction of the City, or as Saul had of the punishment of his Sons after his death. So that from Crellius his own concessions, we have proved, that our sins may very properly be said to be punished in Christ, although he will not say, that Christ could be properly punished C for our sins; nay he and the rest of our Adversaries not only deny it, but earnestly contend, that it is very unjust to suppose it, and repugnant to the rectitude of Gods nature to do it.

And so we come to consider the mighty arguments that are §. 3. Crellius his arguments propounded. insisted on for the proof of this, which may be reduced to these three; viz. 1. That there can be no punishment but what is deserved, but no man can deserve that another should be punished. 2. That punishment flows from revenge, but there can be no revenge where there hath been no fault. 3. That the punishment of one, cannot any ways be made the punishment of another; and D in case it be supposed possible, then those in whose stead the other is punished, must be actually delivered upon the payment of that debt which was owing to God.

1. That one man cannot deserve anothers punishment, and therefore one cannot be punished for another; for there is no just punishment, but what is deserved. This being the main Argument insisted on by Crellius, must be more carefully considered; but before an answer be made to it, it is necessary that a clear account be given in what sense it is he understands it, which will be best done, by laying down his principles, as to the justice of E punishments, in a more distinct method than himself hath done; which are these following: 1. That no person can be justly punished, either for his own or anothers faults, but he that hath deserved to be punished by some sin of his own: For he [Page] still asserts, ‘That the justice of punishment ariseth from a A Crell. c. 4. sect. 3 p. 239, 240. mans own fault, though the actual punishment may be from anothers: But he that is punished without respect to his own guilt, is punished undeservedly; and he that is punished undeservedly, is punished unjustly.’ 2. That personal guilt being supposed one mans sin may be the impulsive cause of anothers punishment, but they cannot be the meritorious. The difference between them he thus explains, ‘The cause, is that which makes a thing to be; the impulsive, that which moves one to do a thing, without any consideration of right that one hath to do it: Merit, is that which makes a man worthy of a B thing, either good or bad, and so gives a right to it; if it be good, to himself; if bad, to him at whose hands he hath deserved it. Now he tells us, that it is impossible, That one mans sins should make any other deserve punishment, but the person who committed them; but they may impel one to punish another, and that justly, if the person hath otherwise deserved to be punished, unjustly if he hath not.’ The reason he gives of it is, ‘That the vitiosity of the act, which is the proper cause of punishment, cannot go beyond the person of the offender; and therefore can oblige none to punishment, C but him that hath committed the fault.’ And therefore he asserts, ‘That no man can be justly punished beyond the desert of his own sins, but there may sometimes be a double impulsive cause of that punishment; viz. His own and other mens, whereof one made that they might be justly Crell. ib. sect. 18. punished, the other that they should be actually: but the later, he saith, always supposeth the former, as the foundation of just punishment; so that no part of punishment could be executed upon him, wherein his own sins were not supposed as the meritorious cause of it.’ These are his two main principles D which we must now throughly examine, the main force of his book lying in them. But if we can prove, that it hath been generally received by the consent of mankind, that a person may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions; if God hath justly punished some for the sins of others, and there be no injustice in one mans suffering by his own consent for another, then these principles of Crellius will be found not so firm as he imagines them.

1. That it hath been generally received by the consent of §. 4. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions. Grot. de Satisf. c. 4. mankind, that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert E of his own actions. For which purpose Grotius objected against Socinus (who appealed to the consent of Nations, about one being punished for anothers fault) ‘That the Heathens did agree, that Children might be punished for their Parents [Page] saults, and people for their Princes, and that corporal punishment A might be born by one for another, did appear by the Persians punishing the whole family for the fault of one. The Macedonians the near kindred in the case of Treason, some Cities of Greece, destroying the Children of Tyrants together with them; in all which, the meer conjunction was supposed a sufficient reason without consent; but in case of consent, he saith, They all agreed in the Justice of some being punished for the faults of others. Thence the right of killing hostages among the most civilized nations; and of sureties being punished in Capital matters, if the guilty B appear not, who were thence called [...] who were bound to answer body for body.’ In which cases, the punishment did extend beyond the desert of the person who suffered it; for no other reason is assigned of these sufferings, besides the conjunction of the person, or his consent; but no antecedent guilt is supposed as necessary, to make the punishment just. We are now to consider what Crellius doth answer to this: 1. As to their acknowledgements of Gods punishing Children for their Parents faults, he gives the same answer which he doth to the examples recorded in Scripture to that C purpose, That either they were punished for the sins of others, but their own sins deserved the punishment; or that the Parents were punished in the Children, but the Children were not properly punished. 2. As to punishments among men, he answers two things; 1. ‘That such persons were truly punished, but not justly: for he acknowledges, That in Crell. c. 4. sect. 5. p. 244. such a case it is a proper punishment, and that it is enough in order to that, that any fault be charged upon a person, whether his own or anothers, whether true or false, on the account of which he is supposed worthy to be punished: D And that such a conjunction is sufficient for cruel, angry, or imprudent men; for where ever there is a place, saith he, for anger, there is likewise for punishment.’ So that he consesseth, there may be a true punishment, and that which answers all the reason and ends of punishment assigned by him, where there is no desert at all of it in the person who undergoes it. But then he adds, that this is an unjust punishment, to which I reply, That then the reason of punishment assigned by Crellius before is insufficient; for if this answers all the ends of punishments assigned by him, and yet be unjust, E then it necessarily follows, that those ends of punishment are consistent with the greatest injustice. For he before made punishment to have a natural respect to anger, and makes the ordinary end of punishment to be a satisfaction of the desire of [Page] revenge in men, yet now grants, that these may be in an unjust punishment. Neither can it be said, that he considered punishment A only naturally, and not morally; for he tells us, that this is the nature of divine punishments, which are therefore just, because designed for these ends; but in case there be no supposal of a fault at all, then he denyes that it is a punishment, but only an asfliction, and an exercise of dominion. So that according to him, where-ever there is a proper punishment, it must be just, when-ever God doth punish men: and the only difference between God and man supposable in this case is, that we have assurance God will never use his dominion unjustly; but that men do so when they make one to suffer for anothers B fault, notwithstanding a consent and conjunction between the man that committed the fault, and the person that suffers for him. But this is begging the thing in question, for we are debating, whether it be an unlawful exercise of power or no? for we have this presumption, that it is not unlawful, because it may answer all the ends of punishments, and what way can we better judge, whether a punishment be just or no, than by that?

But we are to consider, that we do not here take the person we speak of, abstractly as an innocent person, for then there C §. 5. Objections answered. is no question, but anger and punishment of one as such is unjust; but of an innocent person as supposed under an obligation by his own consent to suffer for another. And in this case we assert, since according to Crellius the natural and proper ends of punishments may be obtained, and the consent of the person takes away the wrong done to him in the matter of his sufferings, so far as he hath power over himself, that such a punishment is not unjust. For if it be, it must suppose some injury to be done; but in this case let them assign where the injury lies; it cannot be to the publick, if the ends of punishments D may be obtained by such a suffering of one for another, by a valid consent of the suffering party; it cannot be to the person in whose room the other suffers, for what injury is that to escape punishment by anothers suffering; it cannot be to the suffering person, supposing that to be true, which the Heathens still supposed, viz. that every man had a power I [...]o quenq [...]am pun [...]re est injust è punire. Crell. p. 240. over his own life. If it be said still, that the unjustice lies in this; that such a one suffers undeservedly, and therefore unjustly. I answer, if be meant by undeservedly without sufficient cause or reason of punishment, then we deny that such E a one doth suffer undeservedly. Immerito in the Greek Glosses is rendred by [...] and Merito by [...] and [...], and in Cicero, jure & merito are most commonly joyned together. [Page] So that where there is a right to punish, and sufficient reason for A it, such a one doth not suffer immerito, i. e. undeservedly. If it be said, that such a one is not dignus paena, that implies no more than the other, for dignus, or as the Ancients writ it dicnus, comes from the Greek [...] jus as Vossius tells us, ut dign us sit cui tribui aliquid aequum est: so that where there is an equity in the thing, there is a dignity in the person, or he may be said to be worthy to undergo it. But doth not this lay open the greatest innocency to as great a desert of sufferings, as the highest guilt? By no means. For we make a lyableness to punishment, the natural consequent of guilt: and he that B hath committed a fault, cannot but deserve to be punished, so that no sufferings of others can take away the natural consequence of a bad action, which is a desert of punishment; So that as we say, a wicked action cannot but deserve to be punished, i. e. there is an agreeableness in reason and nature, that he who hath done ill, should suffer ill; so we say likewise there is necessity in nature and reason, that he that hath thus deserved it, must unavoidably suffer it. And on the other side, we say, no man by his innocency can deserve to be punished, i. e. no mans innocency makes him by vertue of C that obnoxious to punishment; but yet we add, that notwithstanding his innocency, the circumstances may be such that he may be justly punished, and in that sense deservedly. So that the Question is strangely mistaken, when it is thus put, Whether an innocent person considered as such, may be justly punished; for no one asserts that, or is bound to do it; but the true question is, whether a person notwith standing his innocency may not by some act of his own will oblige himself to undergo that punishment which otherwise he did not deserve? which punishment, in that case is just and agreeable D to reason: And this is that which we assert and plead for. So that innocency here is not considered any other ways, than whether that alone makes it an unlawful punishment, which otherwise would be lawful, i. e. whether the Magistrate in such cases, where substitution is admittable by the Laws of Nations (as in the cases we are now upon) be bound to regard any more than that the obligation to punishment now lies upon the person, who by his own act hath substituted himself in the others room; and if he proceeds upon this, his action is justifyable and agreeable to reason. If it be said, E that the substitution is unjust, unless the substituted person hath before hand deserved to be punished; it is easily answered, that this makes not the matter at all clearer; for either the person is punished for the former fault, and then there is no [Page] substitution; or if he be punished by way of substitution; then A there is no regard at all had to his former fault, and so it is all one as if he were perfectly innocent.

And by this Crellius his answer to the instances both in Scripture §. 6. The instances of Scripture considered. and elsewhere concerning Childrens being punished for their Parents faults, will appear to be insufficient, viz. ‘That God doth never punish them for their Parents faults beyond the desert of their own sins, and therefore no argument can be drawn from thence, that God may punish an innocent person for the sins of others, because he hath punished some for what they were innocent:’ For the force of the argument doth Bnot lye in the supposition of their innocency, as to the ground of punishment in general, for we do not deny, but that they may deserve to be punished for their own faults: but the argument lies in this, whether their own guilt were then considered as the reason of punishment, when God did punish them for their fathers faults? And whether they by their own sins did deserve to be punished not only with the punishment due to their own miscarriages, but with the punishment due to their fathers too? If not, then some persons are justly punished, who have not deserved that punishment they undergo; if they did C deserve it, then one person may deserve to be punished for anothers sins. If it be said, as it is by Crellius, That his own sins make him capable of punishment, and God by occasion of others sins doth execute that punishment, which he might not have done for his own. I answer, we are not enquiring into the bare capacity of punishing, but into the reason of it: was the reason of punishment his own or his fathers sins? If his own, then he was punished only for his own sins; if his fathers, then the punishment may be just which is inflicted without consideration of proper desert of it; for no man (say they) D can deserve to be punished, but for his own sins. But it's said, that the sins of Fathers are only an impulsive cause for God to punish the Children according to the desert of their own sins, which he might otherwise have forborn to punish. Then, the sins of the Fathers are no reason why the Children should be punished; but their own sins are the reason, and their Fathers the bare occasion of being punished for them. But in Scripture, the reason of punishment is drawn from the Fathers sins: and not from the Childrens: For then the words would have run thus, if the Children sin, and deserve punishment E by their own iniquities, then, I will take occasion from their Fathers sins to visit their own iniquities upon them: Whereas the words refer to the Fathers sins as the reason of the Childrens punishment. So in the words of the Law, wherein the reason [Page] of punishment ought to be most expresly assigned, it is not, A I will certainly punish the Children, if they continue in the Idolatry of their Fathers; but, I will visit the sins of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation Exod 20. 3. of them that hate me: If it were only because of imitation of the Fathers sins by the Children, there could be no reason for the limitation to the third and fourth Generation; for then the reason of punishment would be as long as the imitation continued, whether to the fourth or tenth Generation: And as Alphonsus à Castro observes, ‘If the reason of punishment were the imitation of their Fathers sins, then the Children Alph. à Castro de justâ haeret. punit. l. 2. c. 10. B were not punished for their Fathers sins, but for their own; for that imitation was a sin of their own, and not of their Fathers.’ Besides, if the proper reason of punishment were the sins of the Children, and the Fathers sins only the occasion of it, then where it is mentioned that Children are punished for their Parents sins, the Childrens sins should have been particularly expressed, as the proper cause of the punishment: But no other reason is assigned in the Law, but the sins of the Fathers, no other cause mentioned of Canaans punishment, Gen. 9. 25. but his Fathers sin; nor of the punishment of the people in C Davids time, but his own sin; Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly, but these sheep, what have they done? 2 Sam. 24. 17. Which is no hyperbolical expression, but the assigning the proper cause of that judgement to have been his own sin, as the whole Chapter declares: Nor, of the hanging up of Sauls sons by the Gibeonites, but, that Saul their Father had plotted Sam. 21. 5. their destruction. And in an instance more remarkable than any of those which Crellius answers; viz. the punishment of the people of Iudah, for the sins of Manasses in the time of Iosias; when a through Reformation was designed among D them, the Prince being very good, and all the places of Idolatry destroyed, such a Passover kept as had not been kept before in the time of any King in Israel, yet it then follows, Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Iudah, 2 Kings 23. v. 4. to v. 21.because of all the provocations wherewith Manasses had provoked him withal. Who can say here, that the sins of Manasseh were only the occasion of Gods punishing the people in Vers. 22. Vers. 26. the time of Iosias for their own sins, when their sins were much less in the time of Iosias, than in any time mentioned E before, after their lapse into Idolatry? Nay, it is expresly said, That Iosiah took away all the abominations out of all the 2 Chron. 34. 33. countries that pertained to the Children of Israel, and made all that were present in Isreal to serve, even to serve the Lord [Page]their God. And all his days they departed not from following A the Lord God of their Fathers: To say, that this was done in hypocrisie, and bare outward compliance, is to speak without book; and if the reason of so severe punishments had been their hypocrisie, that ought to have been mentioned; but not only here, but afterwards it is said, that the reason of Gods destroying Iudah, was for the sins of Manasseh; viz. 2 Sam. 24. 3, 4. his Idolatries and Murther, which it is said, the Lord will not pardon. And if he would not pardon, then he did punish for those sins, not barely as the occasion, but as the meritorious cause of that punishment. What shall we say then? Did B the people in Iosiah's time, deserve to be punished for the sins of Manasseh, Grandfather to Iosiah? Or was God so highly provoked with those sins, that although he did not punish Manasseh himself upon his repentance, yet he would let the world see, how much he abhorred them, by punishing those sins upon the people afterwards; although according to the usual proportion of sins punishments, the sins and of the people in that age did not exceed the sins of others ages, as much as the punishments they suffered, did exceed the punishments of other ages: which is necessary according to Crellius his Doctrine; C for if God never punisheth by occasion of their Fathers sins, the Children beyond the desert of their own sins; then it is necessary, that where judgements are remarkably greater, the sins must be so too; the contrary to which is plain in this instance. By which we see, that it is not contrary to the Justice of God in punishing, to make the punishment of some on the account of others sins, to exceed the desert of their own; measuring that desert, not in a way common to all sin; but when the desert of some sins is compared with the desert of others: For it is of this latter we speak of, D and of the method which God useth in punishing sin here, for the demonstration of his hatred of it, according to which the greatest punishments must suppose the greatest sins, either of their own, or others which they suffer for.

But hath not God declared, That he will never punish the Children for the Fathers sins? for the soul that sinneth it shall §. 7. Ezek. 18. 20. explained. Exek. 18. 4, 20. dye; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, &c. To which I answer, These words are to be considered, as an answer to a complaint made by the Iews, soon after their going into Captivity, which they imputed to Gods severity in E punishing them for their Fathers sins. Now the complaint was either true or false; if it were true, then though this was looked upon as great severity in God, yet it was no injustice in him; for though God may act severely, he cannot act unjustly: [Page] If it was false, then the answer had been an absolute A denial of it, as a thing repugnant to the Justice of God. Which we do not find here, but that God saith unto them, v. 3. Ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel: if the thing had been plainly unjust, which they complained of, he would have told them, they never had occasion to use it. But we find the Prophets telling them before hand, that they should suffer for their Fathers sins, Ierem. 15. 3, 4, where he threatens them with destruction and banishment, because of the sins of Manasseh in Ierusalem; and in the beginning of the captivity they complain of this, Lam. B 5. 7. Our Fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have born their iniquities. And Ierem. 31. 28. God saith by the Prophet, that he had watched over them to pluckup, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to afflict: but that he would watch over them to build, and to plant, and in those days they shall say no more, The Fathers have eaten sowre grapes, and the Childrens teeth are set on edge; but every one shall dye for Jer. 31. 29, 30. his own iniquity. Which place is exactly parallel with this in Ezekiel, and gives us a clear account of it, which is, that now indeed God had dealt very severely with them, by making C them suffer beyond, what in the ordinary course of his providence their sins had deserved; but he punished them not only for their own sins, but the sins of their Fathers: But lest they should think, they should be utterly consumed for their iniquities, and be no longer a people enjoying the Land which God had promised them, he tells them by the Prophets, though they had smarted so much, by reason of their Fathers sins, this severity should not always continue upon them; but that God would visit them with his kindness again, and would plant them in their own Land, then they should see no reason D to continue this Proverb among them; for they would then find, Though their Fathers had eaten sowre grapes, their teeth should not be always set on edge with it. And if we observe it, the occasion of the Proverb, was concerning the Land of Israel, [...] super terra Israel, as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it more agreeable to the Hebrew, than the Ezek. 18. 2. other Versions do. So that the Land of Israel was the occasion of the Proverb, by their being banished out of it for their Fathers sins: Now God tells them, they should have no more occasion to use this Proverb concerning the Land of Israel; E for they, notwithstanding their Fathers sins, should return into their own Land. And even during the continuance of their captivity, they should not undergo such great severities for the future, but they should find their condition much more [Page] tolerable than they imagined; only, if any were guilty of A greater sins than others, they should themselves suffer for their own faults, but he would not punish the whole Nation for them, or their own posterity. This I take to be the genuine meaning of this place; and I the rather embrace it, because I find such insuperable difficulties in other Interpretations that are given of it: For to say as our Adversaries do, That what God saith, should not be for the future, was repugnant to his nature and justice ever to do, is to charge God plainly with injustice in what he had done: For the Prophets told them they should suffer for the sins of their Fathers: Which sufferings B were the ground of their complaint now, and the answer here given must relate to the occasion of the complaint; for God saith, They should not have occasion to use that Proverb: Wherein is implied, they should not have the same reason to complain which they had then. I demand then, Do not these words imply, That God would not do for the future with them, what he had done before; if not, the proper answer had been a plain denial, and not a promise for the future he would not; if they do, then either God properly punished them for the sins of their Fathers, and then God must be unjust C in doing so; or it was just with God to do it, and so this place instead of overthrowing will prove, that some may be justly punished, beyond the desert of their own sins: or else, God did only take occasion by their Fathers sins, to punish them according to the desert of their own iniquities: But then they had no cause to complain, that they were punished for any more than their own iniquities; and withal, then God doth oblige himself by his promise here, never to punish men for the future by the occasion of others sins: which is not only contrary to their own Doctrine, but to what is plainly seen afterwards D in the punishment of the Iews for their Fathers sins, mentioned by our Saviour after this: And if this be a certain rule of equity which God here saith, that he would never vary Matth. 23. 35. from, then the punishing of some on the occasion of others sins, would be as unjust, as our Adversaries suppose the punishing any beyond the desert of their own sins to be. But is it not implyed, that Gods ways would be unequal, if he ever Ezek. 18. 25. did otherwise than he there said he would do? No, it is not, if by equal he meant just, for his ways never were, or can be so unequal; but here if it be taken with a respect to the main E dispute of the Chapter, no more is implied in them, but that they judged amiss concerning Gods actions, and that they were just, when they thought them not to be so: or if at least, they thought his ways very severe, though just, God by remitting [Page] of this severity, would shew that he was not only A just, but kind; and so they would find his ways equal, that is, always agreeable to themselves, and ending in kindness to them, though they hitherto were so severe towards them in their banishment and captivity. Or if they be taken with a respect to the immediate occasion of them both, Ezek. 18.—33. They do not relate to this dispute about Childrens suffering for their Fathers sins; but to another, which was concerning Ezek. 33. 20. a righteous mans sinning and dying in his sins, and a wicked mans repenting, and living in his righteousness; which were directly contrary to the common opinion of the B Iews to this day, which is, that God will judge men according to the greatest number of their actions good or bad: as appears by Maimonides and others. Now they thought it a very hard case, for a man who had been righteous the far greatest part of his time, if he did at last commit iniquity, that his former righteousness should signifie nothing, but he must dye in his iniquity. To this therefore God answers, that it was only the inequality of their own ways, which made them think Gods ways in doing so unequal. This then doth not make it unequal, for God either to punish men, upon the occasion, C or by the desert of other mens sins, supposing such a conjunction between them, as there is in the same body of people, to those who went before them. And Crellius himself grants, ‘That Socinus never intended to prove, that one mans suffering for anothers sins was unjust in it self, from this place: Crell. c. 4. sect. 15. no, not though we take it in the strictest sense, for one suffering in the stead of another.’

Having thus far cleared, how far it is agreeable to Gods Justice, to punish any persons either by reason of his dominion, §. 8. The deliverance of the guilty by the sufferings of an innocent person by his own consent, makes not the punishment unjust. or the conjunction of persons, for the sins of others, D and consequently whether any punishment may be undergone justly beyond the proper desert of their own sins, I now return to the consent of Mankind in it, on supposition either of a neer conjunction, or a valid consent which must make up the want of dominion in men without it. And the question still proceeds upon the supposition of those things, that there be a proper dominion in men over that which they part with for others sakes, and that they do it by their free consent; and then we justifie it not to be repugnant to the principles of Reason and Justice for any to suffer beyond the desert of their E own actions. And Crellius his saying, that such a punishment is true punishment, but not just; is no answer at all to the consent of Nations that it is so. And therefore finding this answer insufficient; he relies upon another, viz. ‘That [Page] it was never received by the consent of Nations, that one A Crell. c. 4 sect. 30 32, 34, & [...]. man should suffer in the stead of another, so as the guilty should be freed by the others suffering. For he saith, neither Socinus nor he do deny that one man may be punished for anothers sins; but that which they deny is, that ever the innocent were punished so as the guilty were freed by it, and so he answers, in the case of Hostages and Sureties, their punishment did never excuse the offenders themselves. And to this purpose he saith, Socinus his argument doth hold good, that though one mans money may become anothers, yet one mans sufferings cannot become anothers: For, saith B he, if it could, then it would be all one who suffered, as it is who pays the money due: And then the offender must be presently released, as the Debtor is upon payment of the debt.’ This is the substance of what is said by him upon this Argument. To which I reply; 1. That this gives up the matter in dispute at present between us; for the present question is, Whether it be unjust for any one to suffer beyond the desert of his own actions? Yes saith Crellius, it is, in case he suffers so, as that the guilty be freed by his sufferings. But we are not enquiring, Whether it be just for another person to be freed C for a mans suffering for him? but whether it be just for that man to suffer by his own consent, more than his own actions, without that consent deserved? The release of another person by vertue of his sufferings, is a matter of another consideration. Doth the freeing or not freeing of another by suffering, add any thing to the desert of suffering? He that being wholly innocent, and doth suffer on the account of anothers fault, doth he not suffer as undeservedly, though another be not freed, as if he were? As in the case of Hostages or Sureties, doth it make them at all the more guilty, because the D persons they are concerned for, will be punished notwithstanding, if they come under the power of those who exacted the punishment upon them, who suffered for them? Nay, is not their desert of punishment so much the less, in as much as the guilty are still bound to answer for their own offences? If we could suppose the guilty to be freed by the others sufferings, it would be by supposing their guilt more fully translated upon those who suffer, and consequently, a greater obligation to punishment following that guilt. From whence it follows, that if it be just to punish, when the person is not delivered E from whom the other suffers, it is more just when he is; for the translation of the penalty is much less in the former case, than in latter; and what is just upon less grounds of punishment, must be more just upon greater. I look on this [Page] therefore but as a shift of Crellius, hoping thereby to avoid A the consent of mankind in one mans suffering for another, without attending to the main argument he was upon; viz. The justice of one person suffering for another. 2. It is a very unreasonable thing, to make an action unjust for that, which of it self is acknowledged by our Adversaries to be very just; viz. The pardoning the offenders themselves. If it were just to suffer, if the other were not pardoned, and it were just to pardon, whether the other were punished or no, how comes this suffering to be unjust, meerly by the others being pardoned by it: nay, is it not rather an Argument, that those B sufferings are the most just, which do so fully answer all the ends of punishments; that there is then no necessity that the offender should suffer; but that the Supreme Governor having obtained the ends of Government, by the suffering of one for the rest, declares himself so well pleased with it, that he is willing to pardon the offenders themselves. 3. Many of those persons who have had their sins punished in others, have themselves escaped the punishment due to the desert of their sins. As is plain in the case of Ahab, whose punishment was not so great as his sins deserved, because the full punishment of them was C reserved to his posterity. If it be said, as it is by Crellius, That Ahab was not wholly freed, his life being taken away, Crell. c. 4. sect 25. 1 King 21. 19. for his own sins: That gives no sufficient answer; for if some part of the punishment was deferred, that part he was delivered from; and the same reason in this case will hold for the whole as the part. As is plain in the case of Manasseh, and several others, the guilt of whose sins were punished on their posterity, themselves escaping it. 4. Our Adversaries confess, that in some cases it is lawful and just for some to suffer, with a design that others may be freed by their suffering for them. Thus D they assert, That one Christian, not only may, but ought to lay down his life for another, if there be any danger of his denying the truth, or be judges him far more useful and considerable than himself: so likewise a son for his Father, one Brother for another, or a Friend, or any, whose life he thinks more useful Crell. cap. 6. sect. 39. than his own. Now I ask, whether a man can be bound to a thing that is in its own nature unjust? if not, as it is plain he cannot, then such an obligation of one man to suffer for the delivery of another cannot be unjust, and consequently the suffering it self cannot be so. But Crellius saith, The injustice E in this case lies wholly upon the Magistrate who admits it: but I ask wherefore is it unjust in the Magistrate to admit it? is it because the thing is in it self unjust? if so, there can be no obligation to do it; and it would be as great a sin to undergo [Page] it as in the Magistrate to permit it; but if it be just in A it self, we have obtained what we contend for; viz. that it may be just for a man to suffer beyond the desert of his own actions; for he that lays down his life for his Brethren, doth not deserve by his own actions that very punishment which he undergoes. And if the thing be in it self just, how comes it to be unjust in him that permits it? 5. The reason why among men the offenders themselves are punished, is because those were not the terms, upon which the persons suffered. For if they had suffered upon these terms that the other might be freed, and their suffering was admitted of by the Magistrate on that consideration, then in all reason and B justice the offenders ought to be freed on the account of the others suffering for them. But among men the chief reason of the obligation to punishment of one man for another, is not, that the other might be freed, but that there may be security given to the publick, that the offenders shall be punished: and the reason of the sureties suffering is not to deliver the offender, but to satisfie the Law, by declaring that all care is taken that the offender should be punished, when in case of his escape, the surety suffers for him. But it is quite another thing when the person suffers purposely that others might be C freed by his suffering, for then in case the suffering be admitted, the release of the other is not only not unjust, but becomes due to him that suffered, on his own terms. Not as though it followed ipso facto as Crellius fancies, but the manner of release doth depend upon the terms which he who suffered for them, shall make in order to it. For upon this suffering of one for another upon such terms, the immediate consequent of the suffering is not the actual discharge but the right to it which he hath purchased; and which he may dispense upon what tèrms he shall judge most for his honour. 6. Although D one persons sufferings cannot become anothers so as one mans Money may; yet one mans sufferings may be a sufficient consideration on which a benefit may accure to another. For to that end a donation, or such a transferring right from one to another as is in Money, is not necessary, but the acceptation which it hath from him who hath the power to pardon. If he declare that he is so well pleased with the sufferings of one for another, that in consideration of them, he will pardon those from whom he suffered; where lies the impossibility or unreasonableness of the thing? For Crellius grants, E Crell. ib. sect. 18. that rewards may be given to others than the persons who did the actions in consideration of those actions; and why may not the sufferings of one for others, being purposely undertaken for [Page] this end, be available for the pardon of those whom he suffered A for? For a man can no more transfer the right of his good actions, than of his sufferings. From all which it follows, that one person may by his own consent, and being admitted thereto by him to whom the right of punishing belongs, suffer justly; though it be beyond the desert of his own actions; and the guilty may be pardoned on the account of his sufferings. Which was the first thing we designed to prove from Crellius, in order to the overthrowing his own hypothesis. For it being confessed by him that such sufferings have all that belongs to the nature of punishments, and since God hath justly punished B some for the sins which they have not committed; since all Nations have allowed it just for one man by his own consent to suffer for another; since it cannot be unjust for the offender to be released by anothers sufferings, if he were admitted to suffer for that end, it evidently follows, contrary to Crellius his main Principle, that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert of his own actions: And so that first argument of Crellius cannot hold, that one man cannot by his own consent suffer for another, because no man can deserve anothers punishment, and no punishment is just but what is deserved. C His second argument from the nature of anger and revenge hath been already answered in the first Discourse about the nature and ends of punishments, and [...]s third argument, that one mans punishment cannot become anothers, immediately before. And so we have finished our first consideration of the sufferings of Christ in general, as a punishment of our sins, which we have shewed to be agreeable both to Scripture and Reason. D E

CHAP. IV. A

[Page]

e Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin. What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law; twofold, Civil and Ritual. The Promises made to the Iews under the Law of Moses, respected them as a People, and therefore must be temporal. The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted. A substitution in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, proved from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of [...] joyned with [...] B Lev. 10. 17. explained. The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution. A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ being said to dye for us; the importance of that phrase considered. In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution. Of the true notion of Redemption: that explained, and proved against Socinus and Crellius. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive, where the captivity is not by force, but by sentence of Law. Christs death a proper [...]: and therefore the C [...] attributed to it, cannot be taken for meer deliverance.

WE come now to consider the death of Christ, §. 1. The death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin. as an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind: Which is as much denied by our Adversaries, as that it was a punishment for our sins. For though they do not deny, That Christ as a Priest did offer up a Sacrifice of Expiation for the sins of men; yet they utterly deny, That this was performed on earth, or that D the Expiation of sins did respect God, but only us; or, that the death of Christ, had any proper efficacy towards the expiation of sin, any further than as it comprehends in it all the consequences of his death, by a strange Catechresis. I shall now therefore prove, that all things which do belong to a proper Expiatory Sacrifice, do agree to the death of Christ. There are three things especially considerable in it: 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders. 2. An Oblation of it to God. 3. An Expiation of sin consequent upon it. Now these three, I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of E Christ for us.

1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders. That we are to prove, was designed in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, and that Christ in his death for us, was substituted in our place. [Page] 1. That in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, there was A a Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders. This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us, because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews, between those Sacrifices, and that which was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices, which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin, by God himself. As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was, That without shedding of blood there was no remission. If we Heb. 9. 22. yield Crellius what he so often urgeth; viz. That these words are to be understood, of what was done under the Law: They Crell c. 10. sect. 14. B will not be the less serviceable to our purpose; for thereby it will appear, that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood: Which shews, that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed, was designed in order to the expiation of sin. To an inquisitive person, the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews, would have appeared far less evident than now it doth, since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them. For it had been very unreasonable to have thought, that they had been meerly instituted C out of compliance with the customs of other Nations, since the whole design of their Religion, was to separate them from them: and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little; which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them, that had any respect to the expiation of sins, than all the customs of the Egyptians, or the Commentaries of the latter Iews. But I intend not now to discourse at large, upon this subject of Sacrifices, either as to the nature and institution of them in general, or with a particular respect to the D Sacrifice of Christ, since a learned person of our Church, hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument, and we hope ere long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains. I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose, in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our stead, for the expiation of our sins by his death; and this we say was represented in the Expiatory Sacrifices, which were instituted among the Iews. If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for; viz. That the Sacrifice Crell. c. 10. sect. 13. of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn Expiatory E Sacrifices for the people, and especially those on the day of Atonement: We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert, concerning the Expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ.

[Page] For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the A place of the offenders, will appear from the circumstances and §. 2. What the expiation of si [...] was by the sacrifices under the Law. reason of their Institution: But before we come to that, it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was, which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for; the not understanding of which, gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments, than otherwise they would have. For while men assert, that the expiation was wholly typical, and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ, they easily prove, That all the expiation then, was only declarative, and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered, than B on a condition required by God, the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them; and by this means it could represent, say they, no more than such an expiation to be by Christ; viz. Gods declaring that sins are expiated by him, on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto, as laying down his life was. But we assert another kind of expiation of sin, by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered; which was real, and depended upon the Sacrifice: And this was twofold, a Civil, and a Ritual expiation, according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered, either C as members of a Society, subsisting by a body of Laws, which according to the strictest Sanction of it, makes death the penalty of disobedience, Deut. 27. 26. but by the will of the Legislator, did admit of a relaxation in many cases, allowed by himself; in which he declares, That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted, instead of the death of the offender; and so the offence should be fully expiated, as to the execution of the penal Law upon him. And thus far, I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon Grot. de Satisf. c. 10. this subject, and do yield that no other offence could be D expiated in this manner, but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so. And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off, was to be expiated by Sacrifice; as wilful Idolatry, Murther, &c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of, who make the expiation wholly typical; for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them: because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins; and the blood of Christ represented by them, was designed E for the expiation of all. From whence it is evident, that it was not a meer typical expiation; but it did relate to the civil constitution among them. But besides this, we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine [Page] Worship which was among them; by reason of which, the A people were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted, which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God, and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt, as particularly, the ashes of the red heifer, Numb. 19. 9. which is there called a purification for sin. And the Apostle puts the Heb. 9. 12, 13. blood of Bulls and of Goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, together; and the effect of both of them, he saith, was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh; which implies, that there was some proper and immediate effect of these B sacrifices upon the people at that time, though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men. By which it is plain, the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices, which was in the Sacrifice of Christ, and that the one was barely typical of the other; but of a different kind of expiation, as far as purifying the flesh is from purging the Conscience. But we do not deny, that the whole dispensation was typical, and that the Law had Heb. 10. 1. a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, i. e. a dark and obscure representation, and not the C perfect resemblance of them. There are two things which the Apostle asserts concerning the Sacrifices of the Law: First, that they had an effect upon the Bodies of men, which he calls purifying the flesh; the other is, that they had no power to expiate for the sins of the soul, considered with a respect to the punishment of another life, which he calls purging the Conscience from dead works; and therefore he saith, that all the gifts Heb. 9. 9. 10. 4. and sacrifices under the Law, could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience, and that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take D away sin. So that the proper expiation which was made by them, was civil and ritual, relating either to corporal punishment, or to legal uncleanness, from whence the Apostle well proves the necessity of a higher Sacrifice to make expiation for sins, as pertaining to the Conscience: But that expiation among the Iews did relate to that Polity which was established among them, as they were a people under the Government of a body of Laws distinct from the rest of the world. And they being considered as such, it is vain to enquire, whether they had only temporal or eternal promises; for it was impossible E they should have any other than temporal, unless we imagine, that God would own them for a distinct people in another World as he did in this. For what Promises relate to a People as such, must consider them as a People, and in that [Page] capacity they must be the blessings of a Society, viz. peace plenty, A number of People, length of days, &c. But we are far from denying that the general Principles of Religion did remain among them, viz. that there is a God, and a rewarder of them that seek him; and all the Promises God made to the Patriarchs, did continue in force as to another Country, and were continually improved by the Prophetical instructions among them. But we are now speaking of what did respect the people in general, by vertue of that Law which was given them by Moses, and in that respect the punishment of saults being either death or exclusion from the publick Worship, the expiation of them, was taking away the obligation to either of these, which B was the guilt of them in that consideration.

But doth not this take away the typical nature of these sacrifices? No, but it much rather establisheth it. For as Socinus argues, ‘If the expiation was only typical, there must be something in the type correspondent to that which is typified Soci [...]. de servat. l. 2. c. 10. Prael [...]ct. Theolog. cap. 22. by it. As the Brazen Serpent typified Christ, and the benefit which was to come by him, because as many as looked up to it were healed. And Noahs Ark is said to be a type of Baptism, because as many as entred into that were saved from the deluge. So Corinth. 10. the Apostle saith, that those C things happened to them in types, v. 11. because the events which happened to them, did represent those which would fall upon disobedient Christians.’ So that to make good the true notion of a Type, we must assert an expiation that was real then, and agreeable to that dispensation, which doth represent an expiation of a far higher nature, which was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ.

Which being premised, I now come to p [...]ove, that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed §. 3. A substitution proved from Levit. 17. 11, &c. in stead of the offenders themselves. Which will appear from D Levitious 17. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it you upon the Altar, to make an Atonement for your Souls; for it is the blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul. The utmost that Crellius would have meant by Crell c. 10. sect. 9. this place is, that there is a double reason assigned of the prohibition of eating blood, viz. that the life was in the blood, and that the blood was designed for expiation; but he makes these wholly independent upon each other. But we say, that the proper reason assigned against the eating of the blood, is that which is elsewhere given, when this Precept is mentioned, E viz. that the blood was the life, as we may see Gen. 9. 4 Levit. 17. 14. but to confirm the reason given, that the blood was the life; he adds, that God had given them that upon the [Page]Altar for an Atonement for their Souls: So the Arabick Version A renders it, and therefore have I given it you upon the Altar, viz. because the blood is the life: And hereby a sufficient reason is given, why God did make choice of the blood for atonement, for that is expressed in the latter clause, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul; why should this be mentioned here, if no more were intended but to give barely another reason why they should not eat the blood? what force is there more in this clause to that end, than in the soregoing? for therein God had said, that he had given it them for an Atonement. If no more had been intended, but the B bare prohibition of common use of the blood, on the account of its being consecrated to sacred use, it had been enough to have said, that the blood was holy unto the Lord, as it is in the other instances mentioned by Crellius, of the holy Oyntment and Perfume, for no other reason is there given, why it Exod. 30. 32, 33. 37. 38. should not be profaned to common use, but that it should be holy for the Lord; if therefore the blood had been forbidden upon that account, there had been no necessity at all of adding, that the blood was it that made atonement for the Soul: which gives no peculiar reason why they should not eat the blood, beyond C that of bare consecration of it to a sacred use; but if we consider it as respecting the first clause, viz. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, then there is a particular reason why the blood should be for atonement, viz. because the life was in that; and therefore when the blood was offered, the life of the Beast was supposed to be given instead of the life of the offender. According to that of Ovid,

Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.

Ovid. Fast l. 6.

This will be yet made clearer by another instance produced D by Crellius to explain this, which is the forbidding the eating of fat, which, saith he, is joyned with this of blood, Levit. 3. 17. It shall be a perpetual S [...]atute for your Generations, throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat, nor blood. To the same purpose, Levit. 7. 23, 25, 26. Now no other reason is given of the prohibition of the fat, but this, All the fat is the Lords. Which was enough to keep them Lev. 3. 16. from eating it; but we see here in the case of blood somewhat further is assigned, viz. that it was the life; and therefore was most proper for expiation, the life of the beast being substituted E in the place of the offenders. Which was therefore called anamalis hostia among the Romans, as Grotius observes upon this place, and was distinguished from those whose entrails were observed; for in those Sacrifices as Servius saith, sola anima Servius ad Aencid. 4. [Page] Deo sacratur, the main of the Sacrifice lay in shedding of the A blood, which was called the Soul; and so it is [...] in this place. From whence it appears that such a sacrifice was properly [...], for the same word [...] is used, both relating to the blood and the soul, that is expiated by it: and the LXX do accordingly render it, [...], and in the last clause, [...]. From Eus [...]b. demonst. Evang l. 1. c. 10. whence Eusebius calls these Sacrifices of living Creatures, [...], and afterwards saith they were [...]. And Crellius elsewhere Crell. cap. 8. sect. 23. Denotat e [...]im vo [...] [...] eos quorum alter pro altero animam po [...]at aut devoveat, & fie id malum quod alteri sube [...]nd [...]m erat ejus loco subire non detrectet. grants, that where [...] is joyned with [...] it doth imply B that one doth undergo the punishment which another was to have undergone, which is all we mean by substitution, it being done in the place of another. From whence it follows, that the Sacrifices under the Law being said to be [...] doth necessarily infer a substitution of them in the place of the offenders. And from hence may be understood, what is meant by the Goat of the Sin offering, bearing the iniquity of the Congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord, Levit. 10. 17. for Crellius his saying, That bearing is as much as taking away, or declaring that they are C taken away, hath been already disproved: And his other answer hath as little weight in it; viz. That it is not said, that the sacrifice did bear their iniquities, but the Priest: For, 1. The Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Syriack Version, understand it wholly of the Sacrifice. 2. Socinus himself grants, Soci [...]. de servat. l. 2. c. 11. That if it were said, the Priest did expiate by the sacrifices, it were all one as if it were said, that the sacrifices themselves did expiate; because the expiation of the Priest was by the sacrifice. Thus it is plain in the case of uncertain murther, mentioned Deut 21. from the first to the tenth; If a D murther were committed in the Land, and the person not known who did it, a heifer was to have her head cut of by the Elders of the next City; and by this means they were to put away the guilt of the innocent blood from among them: The reason of which was, because God had said before, That blood defiled the Land, and the Land cannot be cleansed Numb. 35. 33. of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. From whence it appears, that upon the shedding of blood, there was a guilt contracted upon the whole Land wherein it was shed, and in case the Murtherer was not found to expiate that guilt by his own blood, then E it was to be done by the cutting off the head of a heifer instead of him: In which case, the death of the heiser was to do as much towards the expiating the Land, as the death [Page] of the Murtherer if he had been found: And we do not contend, A that this was designed to expiate the Murtherers guilt (which is the Objection of Crellius against this instance) Crell. c. 10. sect 9. but that a substitution here was appointed by God himself, for the expiation of the peo [...]: For what Crellius adds, That the people did not deserve punishment, and therefore needed no expiation; it is a flat contradiction to the Text: For the prayer appointed in that case is, Be merciful, O Deut. 21. 8. Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israels Charge, and the blood shall be expiated; for the same word [...] is B used here, which is in the other places where Expiation is spoken of. So that here must be some guilt supposed, where there was to be an expiation, and this expiation was performed by the substitution of a sacrifice in the place of the offender. Which may be enough at present to shew, that a substitution was admitted by the Law, of a sacrifice instead of the offender, in order to the expiation of guilt; but whether the offender himself was to be freed by that Sacrifice, depends upon the terms on which the sacrifice was offered; for we say still, that so much guilt was expiated, as the sacrifice C was designed to expiate; if the sacrifice was designed to expiate the guilt of the offender, his sin was expiated by it; if not his, in case no sacrifice was allowed by the Law, as in that of murther, then the guilt which lay upon the Land was expiated, although the offender himself were never discovered.

I now come to prove, that in correspondency to such a substitution §. 4. A substitution of Christ in o [...]r room proved by his dying for us. of the sacrifices for sin under the Law, Christ was substituted in our room for the expiation of our guilt; and that from his being said to dye for us, and his death being D called a price of Redemption for us.

1. From Christs being said to dye for us. By St. Peter, 1 Pet. 3. 18. 2. 21. 4. 1. For Christ hath also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust; by whom he is also said, to suffer [...], for us, and, for us in the flesh: By St. Paul, he is said to dye [...], for all, and [...], for the ungodly, and to give himself [...], a ransom for all, and, to 2 Cor. 5. 14. Rom. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 2 6. Heb. 2 9. John 11 50. Luke 22. 19, 20. taste death [...], for every man: By Caiaphas, speaking by inspiration, he is said to dye [...], for the people. So Christ himself instituting his last Supper said, This E is my body which was given, and my blood which was shed [...], for you; and before he had said, That the Son of man came to give his life [...], a ransom for many. Matth. 20. 28. We are now to consider, what arts our Adversaries [Page] have made use of to pervert the meaning of these places, A so as not to imply a substitution of Christ in our room: 1. They say, That all these phrases do imply no more, than a final cause; viz. That Christ died for the good of mankind; 1 John 3. 16. Colos [...]. 1. 24. for the Apostle tells us, We are bound to lay down our lives for the Brethren, and St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church. To which I answer; 1. This doth not at all destroy that which we now plead for; viz. That these phrases do imply a substitution of Christ in our room: For when we are bid to lay down our lives for our brethren, a substitution is implied therein; and supposing that dying for another, B doth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him, yet what doth this hinder substitution, unless it be proved, that one cannot obtain any benefit for another, by being substituted in his room. Nay, it is observable, that although we produce so many places of Scripture, implying such a substitution, they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christs suffering in our stead; all that they say is, That [...] doth not always signifie so, which we never said it did, who say, that Christ suffered [...] not instead of our sins, but by reason of them; but we assert, C that when one person is said to dye for others, as in the places mentioned, no other sense can be so proper and agreeable, as dying in the stead of the other. 2. Socinus himself grants, ‘That there is a peculiarity implied in those Soc de servat. l. 2. c. 8. phrases, when attributed to Christ, above what they have when attributed to any other. And therefore he saith, It cannot be properly said, That one Brother dies for another, or that Paul suffered for the Colossians, or for the Church, as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to dye for us. And from hence, saith he, St. Paul D saith, was Paul crucified for you? implying thereby, that there never was, or could be any, who truly and properly 1 Cor. 1. 13. could be said to dye for men but Christ alone.’ How unreasonable then is it, from the use of a particle as applied to others, to infer, that it ought to be so understood, when applied to Christ? when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us, more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another. 3. It is not the bare force of the particle [...] that we insist upon; but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed, than it is in E Scripture, by this and other particles, for not only [...] is used, but [...] too: which Socinus saith, Although it may signifie Socin. io. something else besides in the stead of another, yet in such places, where it is spoken of a ransom or price, it signifies[Page]the payment of something which was owing before, as A Mat. 17. 27. [...], and so he acknowledges, that where redemption is spoken of, there [...] doth imply a commutation, because the price is given, and the person received, which, he saith, holds in Christ only metaphorically: for the redemption according to him being only Metaphoricall, the commutation must be supposed to be so too.

And this now leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon §. 5. In what sense a surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us. Cr [...]l [...]. 9 sect. 3. Ib. sect. 2. this argument. Wherein we shall consider, what he yields, what he denies, and upon what reasons. 1. He yields, and so he saith, doth Socinus very freely, a commutation: but B it is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it: to that end he tells us, That they acknowledge a twofold commutation; one of the person suffering, the kind of suffering being changed, not actually but intentionally, because we are not actually freed by Christ dying for us, but only Christ dyed for that end, that we might be freed. And this commutation, he saith, that Socinus doth not deny to be implied in the particle [...], in the places where Christ is said to dye for us. Another commutation, which he acknowledges, is, that which is between a price, and the thing or C person which is bought or redeemed by it; where the price is paid, and the thing or person is received upon it. And this kind of commutation, he saith, is to be understood in the places where [...] is mentioned; which price, he saith, by accident may be a person; and because the person is not presently delivered, he therefore saith, that the commutation is Ib sect. 6. rather imperfect than metaphorical; and although, he saith, [...] doth not of it self imply a commutation, yet he grants, that the circumstances of the places do imply it. 2. He denies, that there is any proper surrogation in Christs Ib. sect. 7. D dying for us, which, he saith, is such a commutation of persons, that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was; and if it refers to sufferings; then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer, he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings. And against this kind of surrogation, Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons; for Grotius never asserted it; neither do we say, that Christ suffered eternal death for us, or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings. But that which Grotius E asserts that he meant by substitution was this, that unless Christ had died for us, we must have died our selves, and because Christ hath died we shall not die eternally. But if this be all, saith Crellius, he meant by it, we grant Ib. [...]. 3. [Page] the whole thing, and he complains of it as an injury for any A to think otherwise of them. If so, they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world. But notwithstanding all these fair words, Crellius means no more than Socinus did; and though he would allow the words which Grotius used, yet not in the sense he understood them in; for Crellius means no more by all this, but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven, Grotius understands by them, that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death. B However, from hence it appears, that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice (from want of a substitution in our room) since they profess themselves so willing to own such a substitution. But if they say, that there could be no proper substitution, because the death of Christ was a bare condition, and no punishment, they then express their minds more freely; and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution, I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment. Neither is it necessary, that the very same kind of punishment C be undergone in order to surrogation, but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed. For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it, whatever is sufficient for that end, doth make a proper surrogation. For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government, and if that may be done by an aequivalent suffering, though not the same in all respects, then it may be a proper surrogation. If David had obtained his wish, that he had died for his Son Absolom, D it had not been necessary in order to his Sons escape, that he had hanged by the hair of his head, as his Son did; but his death, though in other circumstances, had been sufficient. And therefore when the Lawyers say, subrogatum, sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur: Covarruvias Covarru To. 1. p. 1. sect. 4 n. 3. tells us, it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem; from whence it appears, that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation; but that the nature of the punishment remain the same. Thus Christ dying for us, to deliver us E from death, and the curse of the Law, he underwent an accursed death for that end; although not the very same which we were to have undergone, yet sufficient to shew, that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order [Page] to the delivering us from it. And if our Adversaries will A yield us this, we shall not much contend with them about the name of a proper surrogation.

But in the matter of Redemption, or where [...] is used, §. 6 Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution. Crellius will by no means yield that there was a commutation of persons between Christ and us, but all the commutation he will allow here is only a commutation between a thing, or a price, and a person. Which he therefore asserts, Crell. c 9 sect. 2. that so there may be no necessity of Christs undergoing the punishment of sin in order to redemption, because the price that is to be paid, is not supposed to undergo the B condition of the person delivered by it. Which will evidently appear to have no force at all, in case we can prove, that a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another; for that punishment then comes to be the [...] or price of redemption; and he that pays this, must be supposed to undergo punishment for it. So that the commutation being between the punishment of one, and the other redeemed by it, here is a proper commutation of persons implied in the payment of the price. But hereby we may see that the great subtilty of our Adversaries C is designed on purpose to avoid the force of the places of Scripture, which are so plain against them: For when these places where [...] and [...] are joyned together, are so clear for a substitution, that they cannot deny it; then they say, by it is meant only a commutation of a price for a person; but when the word [...] is urged to prove a redemption purchased by Christ, by the payment of a price for it, then they deny that [...] doth signifie a proper price, but is only taken metaphorically; and yet if it be so taken, then there can be no force in what Crellius saith, for a bare D metaphorical price may be a real punishment: Two things I shall then prove against Crellius. 1. That the [...] as applied to Christ, is to be taken in a proper sense. 2. That although it be taken in a proper sense, yet it doth not imply a bare commutation of a price and a person, but a substitution of one person in the room of another.

Both these will be cleared from the right stating the notion §. 7. Of the true notion of Redemption of redemption between our Adversaries and us. For they will not by any means have any other proper notion of redemption but from captivity, and that by the payment of E a price to him that did hold in captivity, and therefore because Christ did not pay the price to the Devil, there could be no proper sense either of the redemption, or the price which was paid for it. This is the main strength of all the [Page] arguments used by Socinus and Crellius, to enervate the A Socia. de servat. [...]. 2. c. 1, 2. Crell. c. 8. sect. 11. force of those places of Scripture which speak of our redemption by Christ, and of the price which he paid in order to it. But how weak these exceptions are, will appear upon a true examination of the proper notion of Redemption, which in its primary importance signifies no more, than the obtaining of one thing by another as a valuable consideration for it. Thence redimere anciently among the Latins signified barely to purchase by a valuable price, for the thing which they had a right to by it; and sometimes to purchase that which a man hath sold before, thence the pac [...]um B redimendi in contracts: still in whatever sense it was used by the Lawyers or others, the main regard was, to the consideration upon which the thing was obtained, thence redimere delatorem pecunia, h. e. eum à delatione deducere; so redimere litem; and redemptor litis was one that upon ulpia l 29. D. de [...]re fi [...]i. certain consideration took the whole charge of a suit upon himself: and those who undertook the farming of customs at certain rates, were called redemptores vectigalium, quiredempturis auxissent vectigalia, saith Livy. And all those Budaeus ad Pa [...]dect. p. 189. Liv. l. 23. Festus v. red. ul [...]ian. l 39. D. de rei vend. who undertook any publick work at a certain price, redemptores C antiquitus dicebantur, saith Festus and Ulpian. From hence it was applied to the delivery of any person from any inconvenience that he lay under, by something which was supposed a valuable consideration for it. And that it doth not only relate to captivity, but to any other great calamity, the freedom from which is obtained by what another suffers; is apparent from these two remarkable expressions of Cicero to this purpose. Quam quidem ego (saith he, Cicer. ep. [...]a [...]il l. 2. cp 16. speaking of the sharpness of the time) a rep. meis privatis & domesticis incommodis libentissimè redemissem. And D more expresly elsewhere, Ego vitam omnium civium, statum Or [...]t. [...]o Syll [...]. orbis terrae urbem hanc denique, &c. quinque hominum amentium ac perditorum poena redemi. Where it is plain, that redemption is used for the delivery of some by the punishment of others; not from meer captivity, but from a great calamity which they might have fallen into, without such a punishment of those persons. So vain is that assertion of Socinus, redimere, nihil aliud propriè significat, quam eum captivum e manibus illius, qui eum detinet, pretio Soc. de [...]rvat. l. 2. c. 1. illi dato liberare. E

And yet supposing we should grant that redemption as used §. 8. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive. in sacred Authors doth properly relate to captivity, there is no necessity at all of that which our Adversaries contend so earnestly for, viz. That the price must be paid to him that [Page]detains captive. For we may very easily conceive a double A sort of captivity, from whence a redemption may be obtained; the one by force, when a Captive is detained purposely for advantage to be made by his redemption; and the other in a judicial manner, when the Law condemns a person to captivity, and the thing designed by the Law is not a meer price, but satisfaction to be made to the Law, upon which a redemption may be obtained; now in the former case it is necessary, that the price be paid to the person who detains, because the reason of his detaining, was the expectation of the price to be pald; but in the latter, the detainer is meerly B the instrument for execution of the Law, and the price of redemption is not to be paid to him; but to those who are most concerned in the honour of the Law. But Crellius Crell. c 8. sect. 11. objects, that the price can never be said to be paid to God, because our redemption is attributed to God as the author of it, and because we are said to be redeemed for his use and service, now, saith he, the price can never be paid to him for whose service the person is redeemed. But all this depends upon the former mistake, as though we spake all this while of such a redemption, as that is of a Captive by force; C in whom the detainer is no further concerned, than for the advantage to be made by him; and in that case the price must be paid to him who detains, because it would otherwise be unsuccessful for his deliverance: but in case of captivity by Law, as the effect of disobedience, the Magistrate who is concerned in the life of the person, and his future obedience may himself take care that satisfaction may be given to the Law for his redemption, in order to his future serviceableness. From hence we see both that the [...] is proper in this case of our redemption, and that it is not a meer commutation D of a price for a person, but a commutation of one persons suffering for others, which suffering being a punishment in order to satisfaction, is a valuable consideration, and therefore a price for the redemption of others by it. Which price in this sense doth imply a proper substitution; which was the thing to be proved. Which was the first thing to be made good concerning the death of Christ being a sacrifice for sin, viz. that there was a substitution of Christ in our stead as of the sacrifices of old under the Law; and in this sense the death of Christ was a proper [...] or price of redemption E for us. Nothing then can be more vain, than the way of our Adversaries, to take away the force of all this, because [...] is sometimes taken for a meet deliverance without any price, which we deny not; but the main force of our [Page] argument is from the importance of [...], where the [...] is mentioned; and then we say that [...] when applied to A sins, signifies expiation, (as Heb. 9. 15. [...],) but when applied to persons, it signifies the deliverance purchased by the [...], which is not to be considered as a bare price, or a thing given, but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance: and is therefore not only called [...], but [...] too, which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation, and we have shewed, doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place. B C D E

CHAP. V. A

[Page]

The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ, because of the Oblation made therein to God. Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed. Against him it is proved, that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us. Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power. No proper expiation of sin belongs B to Christ in Heaven, if Crellius his Doctrine be true. Ephes. 5. 2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice, and an Oblation to God. The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour, belongs to expiatory Sacrifices; Crellius his gross notion of it. His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices. Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law. A new distribution of sacrifices proposed. What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation. The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement; from whence it is proved, that Christs C Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven. The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice, proved by the Iewish Laws, and the customs of other Nations. Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven, or on Earth? Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law. Several things observed from thence to our purpose. All things necessary to a legal Oblation, concur in the death of Christ, His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it; if the blood of Christ were no sacrifice for sin. In Sin-offerings for the D People, the whole was consumed; no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests, but in those for private Persons. Christs exercise of Power in Heaven, in no sense an Oblation to God. Crellius, his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute. Objections answered.

THE Second thing to prove the death of Christ a Sacrifice §. 1. Of the O [...]lation made by Christ unto God. for sin, is the Oblation of it to God for that end. ‘Grotius towards the conclusion of his book, E makes a twofold oblation of Christ, parallel to that of the Sacrifices under the Law, the first of Mactation, the second of Representation; whereof the first was done in the Temple, the second in the Holy of Holies; so the first [Page] of Christ was on Earth, the second in Heaven; the first is A not a bare preparation to a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice: the latter not so much a Sacrifice, as the commemoration of one already past. Wherefore, since appearing and interceding are not properly sacerdotal acts, any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offered, he that takes away that Sacrifice, doth not leave to Christ any proper Priesthood, against the plain authority of the Scripture, which assigns to Christ the office of a Priest distinct from that of a Prophet and a King.’ To which Crellius replies: That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth B Cr [...]ll. c. 10. sect. 45. in Heaven; and may be applyed to the death of Christ only, as the condition by which he was to enjoy that power in Heaven, whereby he doth expiate sins; but the Priest was never said to Ib. sect. 55. expiate sins when he killed the beast, but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holies, to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven doth answer: but mactation, saith he, Ib. sect. 47. was not proper to the Priests, but did belong to the Levites also. And Christ was not truly a Priest, while we was on Earth, but Ib. sect. 53. only prepared by his sufferings to be one in Heaven, where by the perpetual care he takes of his People, and exercising his Power C Ib. sect. 54. Sect. 56. for them, he is said to offer up himself, and intercede for them, and by that means he dischargeth the Office of a High-Priest for them. For his Priestly Office, he saith, is never in Scripture mentioned as distinct from his Kingly, but is comprehended under it; and the great difference between them is, that one is of a larger extension than the other is, the Kingly Office extending to punishing, and the Priestly only to expiation. This is the substance of what Crellius more at large discourseth upon this subject. Wherein he asserts these things. 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation D of sins respect God but us; his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist, being the exercise of his power for the good of his People. 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth, because the mactation had no reference to expiation, any other than as a preparation for it; and Christ not yet being constituted a High-Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead. Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse, by proving; 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and E not to us, 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross.

[Page] 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect A to God, and not to us; which appears from the first Institution Tha [...] [...]e Priest [...]y Office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not us. Crell. in Heb. 5. 1. of a High-Priest, mentioned by the Apostle, Hebr. 5. 1. For every High-Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Id est, saith Crellius elsewhere, ut procuret & peragat ea quae ad colendum ac propitiandum numen pertinent; i. e. That he may perform the things which appertain to the worshipping and propitiating God: We desire no more, but that the propiating God, may as immediately be said to respect him, as the worshipping of God doth; or let Crellius tell us, B what sense the propitiating God will bear; if all that the High-Priest had to do, did immediately respect the people: nay, he saith not long after, ‘That it was the chief Office of a High-Priest, to plead the cause of sinners with God, and to take care, that they may find him kind and propitious, and not angry or displeased.’ In what sense God was said to be moved by the Expiatory Sacrifices, is not here our business to discuss; it is sufficient for our purpose, that they were instituted with a respect to God, so as to procure his favour, and divert his wrath. In which sense, the Priest is so often in the Levitical Law said, C by the offering up of Sacrifices, to expiate the sins of the people. But Crellius saith, ‘This ought not so to be understood, as though God by Expiatory Sacrifices, were diverted from his Crell cap. 10. sect. 3. anger, and inclined to pardon;’ which is a plain contradiction, not only to the words of the law, but to the instances that are recorded therein; as when Aaron was bid in the time of the Plague to make an Atonement for the people, for there is wrath gone out from the Lord: and he stood between the living and the dead; Numb. 16. 46. and the plague was stayed. Was not Gods anger then diverted here, by the making this Atonement? The like instance we read Vers. 48. D in Davids time, that by the offering burnt-offerings, &c. the Lord was intreated for the Land, and the plague was stayed from Israel: By which nothing can be more plain, than that the primary 2 Sam. 24. 25. intention of such Sacrifices, and consequently of the Office of the Priest who offered them, did immediately respect the Atoning God: But yet Crellius urgeth, ‘This cannot be said of all, or of the most proper Expiatory Sacrifices:’ but we see it said of more than the meer Sacrifices for sin, as appointed by the Law; viz. of burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, and incense, in the examples mentioned. So that these Levitical Sacrifices E did all respect the atoning God; although in some particular cases; different Sacrifices were to be offered; for it is said, the burnt-offering was to make atonement for them, as well as the Lev. [...]. 4. 4 20. 5. 7. sin and trespass-offerings (excepting those sacrifices which were [Page] instituted in acknowledgement of Gods Soveraignty over them, A and presence among them, as the daily Sacrifices, the meat and drink offerings, or such as were meerly occasional, &c.) Thus it is said, that Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an 1 Chron 6. 49. Atonement for Israel: So that as Grotius observes out of Philo, ‘The High-Priest was a Mediator between God and man, by Grot. in Heb. 5. 1. whom men might propitiate God, and God dispense his favours to men.’ But the means whereby he did procure favoursto men, was by atoning God by the Sacrifices, which he was by his Office to offer to him. We are now to consider, how far this holds in reference to Christ, for whose sake the B Apostle brings in these words; and surely would not have mentioned this as the primary Office of a High-Priest, in order to the proving Christ to be our High-Priest, after a more excellent manner than the Aaronical was, unless he had agreed with him in the nature of his Office, and exceeded him in the manner of performance.

For the Apostle both proves, that he was a true and proper, and not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest, and that in such a capacity, §. 3. Christ no barely metaphorical High-Priest. he very far exceeded the Priests after the order of Aaron. But how could that possibly be, if he failed in the primary C Office of a High-Priest; viz. In offering up gifts and sacrifices to God? If his Office as High-Priest did primarily respect men, when the Office of the Aaronical Priest did respect God? To avoid this, Crellius makes these words to be ‘only an allusion to the Legal Priesthood, and some kind of similitude Crell. cap. 10. sect. 3. between Christ and the Aaronical Priests;’ but it is such a kind of allusion, that the Apostle designs to prove, Christ to be an High-Priest by it; and which is of the greatest force, he proves the necessity of Christs having somewhat to offer from hence: For every High-Priest is ordained to offer gifts, D Heb. 8. 2. and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity, that this man have somewhat also to offer. This is that which he looks at as the peculiar and distinguishing character of a High-Priest; for interceding for others, and having compassion upon them, might be done by others besides the High-Priest; but this was that, without which he could not make good his name, what order soever he were of. If Christ then had no proper sacrifice to offer up to God, to what purpose doth the Apostle so industriously set himself to prove, that he is our High-Priest? when he must needs fail in the main thing, according to his own assertion? How easie E had it been for the Iews, to have answered all the Apostles Arguments concerning the Priesthood of Christ, if he had been such a Priest, and made no other Oblation than Crellius allows him? When the Apostle proves against the Iews, that there was [Page] no necessity, that they should still retain the Mosaical Dispensation, A because now they had a more excellent High-Priest than the Aaronical were; and makes use of that character of a High-Priest, that he was one taken out from among men, in things pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins: ‘Well, say the Iews, we accept of this character, but how do you prove concerning Christ, that he was such a one? Did he offer up a Sacrifice for sin to God upon earth, as our High-Priests do?’ No, saith Crellius, his sufferings were only a preparation for his Priesthood in Heaven: ‘But did he then offer up such a Sacrifice to God in B Heaven?’ Yes, saith Crellius, He made an Oblation there. ‘But is that Obligation such a Sacrifice to God for sin, as our High-Priests offers?’ Yes, saith Crellius, it may be called so by way of allusion. ‘Well then, say they, you grant that your Iesus is only a High-Priest by way of allusion, which was against your first design to prove; viz. That he was a true High-Priest, and more excellent than ours. But suppose it be by way of allusion, doth he make any Oblation to God in Heaven or not?’ No, saith Crellius, really and truly he doth not: for all his Office doth respect us, C but the benefits we enjoy coming originally from the kindness of God, you may call it an Oblation to God if you please. ‘But how is it possible then, say the Iews, you can ever convince us, that he is any High-Priest, or Priest at all, much less, that he should ever exceed the Aaronical High-Priests in their Office? for we are assured, that they do offer Sacrifices for sin, and that God is attoned by them: but if your High-Priest make no atonement for sin, he falls far short of ours, and therefore we will still hold to our Levitical Priesthood, and not forsake that for one barely Metaphorical, D and having nothing really answering the name of a High-Priest.’ Thus the force of all the Apostles Arguments is plainly taken away, by what Crellius and his Brethren assert concerning the Priesthood of Christ. But Crellius thinks to make it good by saying, That things that are improper and Crell. cap. 10. [...]ect. 3. I [...]. s [...]ct. 56. [...] 547. figurative, may be far more excellent than the things that are proper, to which they are opposed; so that Christs Priesthood may be far more excellent than the Aaronical, although his be only figurative, and the other proper. But the question is not, Whether Christs Priesthood by any other adventitious E considerations, as of greater Power and Authority than the Aaronical Priests had, may be said to be far more excellent than theirs was; but, Whether in the notion of Priesthood, it doth exceed theirs? Which it is impossible to make good, [Page] unless he had some proper oblation to make unto God, which A in it self did far exceed all the Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law.

But what that oblation of Christ in Heaven was, which §. 4. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ. had any correspondency with the Sacrifices under the Law, our Adversaries can never assign; nay, when they go about it, they speak of it in such a manner, as makes it very evident they could heartily have wished the Epistle to the Hebrews had said as little of the Priesthood of Christ, as they say, any other part of the New Testament doth. Thence Smalcius and Crellius insist so much upon the Priesthood of Christ, being distinctly B Smalc. c. Smiglec. Crell cap. 10. p. 544. mentioned by none but the Author to the Hebrews; which, say they, had surely been done, if Christ had been a proper Priest, or that Office in him distinct from his Kingly. Which sufficiently discovers what they would be at; viz. That the Testimony of the Author to the Hebrews, is but a single Testimony in this matter; and in truth, they do (as far as is consistent with not doing it in express words) wholly take away the Priesthood of Christ: For what is there which they say his Priesthood implies, which he might not have had, supposing he had never been called a Priest? His being in Heaven, doth C not imply that he is a Priest, unless it be impossible for any but Priests ever to come there: His Power and Authority over the Church, doth not imply it; for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power: his readiness to use that power, cannot imply it, which is the thing Smalcius insists on; for his being a King of the Church, doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church. His receiving his power from God, doth not imply that he was a Priest, although Crellius insists on that, unless all the Kings of the Earth are Priests by that means too, D and Christ could not have had a subordinate power as King, as well as Priest. But his death is more implied, saith Crellius, in the name of a Priest, than of a King; true, if his death be considered as a Sacrifice, but not otherwise: For what is there of a Priest in bare dying, do not others so too? But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ, than the meer title of a King: What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while, if his being so, did not give the greatest encouragement to all his subjects? nay, it is plain, the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people, because that implies E his power to desend them, which the bare name of a Priest doth not. So that there could be no reason at all given, why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ, if no more were implied in it, than the exercise of his power [Page]with respect to us, without any proper oblation to God: For here A is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him; so that upon their hypothesis, the name of High-Priest, is a meer insignificant title used by the Author to the Hebrews, without any foundation at all for it. By no means, saith Cellius, for his expiation of sin is implyed by it, which is not implyed in the name of King: True, if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God, which they deny; but though they call it Expiation, they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people. But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the B Levitical Priesthood? that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest, who was thereby said to expiate Levit. 4. 26. v, 31. 35. the sins of the people: how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense, and yet still called by the same name?

But this being the main thing insisted on by them, I shall prove from their own Principles, that no expiation of sin in §. 5. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven, if Crellius his doctrine be true. their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven, by vertue of his Oblation of himself there, and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider, what their notion of the expiation C of sins is, which is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices, ‘There is a twofold Crell. cap. 10. sect. 2. power, saith he, of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin, one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin, and that partly by declaring, that God will do it, and giving us a right to it, partly by actual deliverance from punishment; the other is by begetting Faith in us, and so drawing us off from the practice of sin:’ Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ, as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the D remission of sin; and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine; and the other, viz. the actual deliverance from punishment, is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ; for then only, they say, the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin, viz. eternal death; and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven? Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth? What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading men to believe? or is his second coming, E when he shall sit as Judge, the main part of his Priesthood; for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper? And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christs Pristhood, than that is; so that expiation of [Page] sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation A of Christ in Heaven, or (which is all one in their sense) his continuance in Heaven to his second coming. Yes, saith Crellius, his continuance there, is a condition in order to Crell. cap. 10. sect. 3. p. 476. the expiation by actual deliverance, and therefore it may be said, that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins. The utmost then, that is attributed to Christs being in Heaven, in order to the expiation of sins, is that he must continue there without doing anything in order to it; for if he does, it must either respect God or us: but they deny (though contrary to the importance of the words, and the design of the places B where they are used) that the terms of Christs interceding for us, or being an Advocate with the Father for us, do H b. 7. 25. Rom. 8. 3. 1 John 2. 1. note any respect to God, but only to us; if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin, it must be either declaring, perswading, or actual deliverance; but it is none of these by their own assertions; and therefore that which they call Christs Oblation, or his being in Heaven, signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin: and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing, which hath no influence at all upon it, should be looked on as a condition in order to it. From whence C it appears, that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christs Priesthood to respect us and not God, they destroy the very nature of it, and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it: But if Christ be truly a High-Priest, as the Apostle asserts that he is, from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin: which was the thing to be proved.

2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation §. 6. Ephes 5. 2. Proves the death of Christ in Expiatory Sacrifice and an oblation to God. Ephes. 5. 2. of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove D by two things, 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering, and a Sacrifice to God. 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God, which is plain from the words of St. Paul, as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour. Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation, but they deny, ‘That it is meant of an Expiatory Sacrifice, but of a free will E Crell. cap. 10. sect. 47. offering; and the reason Crellius gives is, because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost always used of sacrifices which are not expiatory; but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice, they are not applyed to [Page] that which was properly expiatory in it, viz. the offering up of the blood, for no smell, saith he, went up from thence, but to the burning of the fat, and the kidneys, which although required to perfect the expiation, yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies, hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ, where all things are persected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary.’ How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day, the former discourse hath already B discovered. For what can be more absurd, than to say, that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary, and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lye in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary, viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead. But of that already. We now come to a punctual and direct answer, as to which two things must be enquired into. 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is? 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applyed? 1. For C the importance of the phrase. The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noahs Sacrifice after the flood, of which it is said, that he offered burnt-offerings on Gen. 8. 20. 21. the Altar, and the Lord smelled a savour of rest, or a sweet savour. Which we are not to imagine in a gross corporeal manner, as Crellius seems to understand it, when he saith, the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the kidneys; for surely, none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet-smelling savour of it self, and we must least of all imagine that of God, which Porphyry saith, was the D property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased, and as it were, to grow fat, [...], with the smell and vapours of blood, and flesh, (by which testimony Porph [...]r. de abstinent. l. 2. sect. 42. it withal appears, that the same steams in Sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh:) But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature, which we may easily do, if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in, when it calls it. Odorem placabilitatis, or the savour of rest, as the word properly signifies; for [...] is the word formed from the Verb [...] which E is used for the resting of the Ark, v. 4. of the same Chapter, and so it imports a rest after some commotion, and in that sense is very proper to Atonement, or that whereby God makes his anger to rest; so Aben Ezra upon that place expounds [Page] the Savour of rest, to be such a one which makes God A cease from his anger: Thence in Hiphil [...] signifies to appease, or to make peace; in which sense it is used by R. Solom. upon Isa. 27. 5. Munster tells us the sense is, Deus nunc quievit ab ira & placatus fuit, and to the same purpose Vatablus: which sense is most agreeable to the design of the following words, in which God expresseth his great kindness, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; which are words highly expressing, how much God was propitiated by the Sacrifice which Noah offered, and therefore Iosephus doth well interpret this to be a B proper Expiatory Sacrifice; that God would now be aioned, Ioseph. A [...]tiq̄. Iud. l. 1. c. 4. and send no more such a deluge upon the world; which he saith, was the substance of Noahs prayer, when he offered this Burnt-offering, and that God would receive his Sacrifice [...], That he would no more receive such displeasure against the earth: So that the first time ever this expression was used, it is taken in the proper sense of an Expiatory Sacrifice.

And by that the second enquiry may be easily resolved; viz. What kind of Sacrifices it doth belong to, which we see in C §. 7. Crellius his mistakes about the kinds of sacrifices. the first place is, to expiatory, which Crellius denies by a great mistake, of the sense of the phrase, and of the nature of the Offerings, concerning which this expression is most used; viz. Holocausts, as though those were not Expiatory Sacrifices: But if we can make it appear, that the Holocausts were Expiatory Sacrifices, then it will follow, that this phrase doth most properly agree to a Sacrifice designed for Expiation. But Crellius here speaks very confusedly concerning Sacrifices, opposing Holocausts and Freewil-offerings to Expiatory Sacrifices; whereas the Freewil-offerings might D be Expiatory, as well as Eucharistical; that denomination not respecting the end the Sacrifices were designed for, but that the precise time of offering them was not determined by the Law; as in the stated and solemn Sacrifices. For the general distribution of Sacrifices, seems most proper into Propitiatory and Encharistical; which distinction is thought by some to hold from the first time we read of Sacrifices in Scripture; because the Sacrifice of Cain was of the fruits of the ground, and of Abel, of the Firstlings of his flock. Although Gen. 4. 3, 4. there seems to be nothing meant by this difference of Sacrifices, E but the diversity of their imployments, either of them Sacrificing according to them; and I cannot say what some do, that the reason of Gods rejecting Cains Sacrifice, was because it was not designed for expiation. But the practice of [Page] after ages, wherein we have a fuller account of the grounds A of the several Sacrifices, makes it appear, that the Expiatory Sacrifices before the Law, were all Burnt-offerings; and of all those who were not under the particular obligation of that Law: As is plain in the Expiatory Sacrifices of Iob for his sons, and for his friends, which were Burnt-offerings; and among the Iews, all the Sacrifices that were offered up before Job. 1. 5. 42, 8. the Levitical Law, were, as the Iews themselves tell us, only Burnt-offerings: And after the setling of their Worship among themselves, they did receive Burnt-offerings for expiation Selden de jure [...]a [...]. & [...]e [...]t. a [...]u [...] Eb [...]a. l. 3. c. 2. &c. 6. from strangers, as Mr. Selden at large proves from the B Iewish Writers. It seems then very strange, that since Burnt-offerings before the Law were Expiatory, and under the Law they continued so for strangers, they should be of another nature for the Iews themselves. But what reason is there for it in the text? not the least that I can find, but expresly the contrary. For in the beginning of Leviticus, where the Law for Burnt-offerings is delivered, the words are, And he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering [...], and it shall Levit. 1. 4. be accepted for him, to make atonement for him; which is as much as is ever said of any Expiatory Sacrifices: And in the C Verse before, where we render [...] of his own voluntary will; it is by the vulgar Latin rendred, Ad placandum sibi Dominum; by the Syriack Version, Ad placationem sibi obtinendam à Domino; and to the same purpose by the Chaldee Paraphrast; but no one Version considerable that so renders it, as to make Burnt-offerings to be Freewil-offerings here, which Lev. 7. 16. 22. 18. &c. Levit. 6. 7. are spoken of distinctly, and by themselves afterwards: And the Chaldee Paraphrast, Ionathan thus explains, This is the Law of the Burnt-offering; i. e. Quod venit ad expiandum pro cogitationibus cordis; but although the Iews be not fully D agreed, what the Burnt-offerings were designed to expiate, yet they consent that they were of an Expiatory nature. Which might make us the more wonder, that Crellius and others should exclude them from it, but the only reason given by Crell. c. 10. p 530. him is, because they are distinguished from Sacrifices for sin, as though no Sacrifices were of an Expiatory nature but they, and then the Trespass-offerings must be excluded too, for they are distinguished from Sin-offerings as well as the other. The ignorance of the Iews in the reason of their own customs, hath been an occasion of great mistakes among Christians, concerning E the nature of them; when they judge of them according to the blind or uncertain conjectures which they make concerning them: So that the Text is oft-times far clearer than their Commentaries are. Setting aside then the intricate and [Page] unsatisfactory niceties of the Iewish Writers, about the several A reasons of the Burnt-offerings and Sin and Trespass-offerings, and the differences they make between them, which are so various and incoherent, I shall propose this conjecture concerning the different reasons of them, viz. That some Sacrifices were assumed into the Jewish Religion, which had been long in use in the world before, and were common to them with the Patriarchs, and all those who in that age of the world did fear and serve God, and such were the Burnt-offerings for expiation of sin, and the fruits of the earth by way of gratitude to God. Other Sacrifices were instituted among them, with B a particular respect to themselves, as a people governed by the Laws of God: And these were of several sorts; 1. Symbolical, of Gods presence among them, such was the daily Sacrifice, instituted as a testimony of Gods presence, Exod. 29. from v. 38. to the end. 2. Occasional, for some great mercies vouchsased to them, as the Passover and the Solemn Festivals, &c. 3. Expiatory, for the sins committed against their Law: And these were of three sorts; 1. Such as were wholly consumed to the honor of God, which were the Burnt-offerings. 2. Such, of which some part was consumed upon C the Al [...]ar, and some part fell to the share of the Priests; and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself, under the [...], or else generally comprehended under the [...] as being allowed to be expiated, because committed through inadvertency. 3. Such, whereof a less part was consumed, as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation, mentioned Levit. 23. 19. whereof the blood was sprinkled, only the inwards burnt, and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them, as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons (of which as being private Sacrifices, I have here no D occasion to speak) but only by the Priests in the Court; and these had something of expiation in them: For thence, saith Vatablus, the Peace offering was called by the Greeks [...], i. e. Expiatorium, and the LXX. commonly render it, [...], and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was, That it made peace between God and him that offered it: But the great reason I insist on, is, Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice, were in this too; the slaying of the Beast, the sprinkling of the blood, and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar, as an E Oblation to God, which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice; for the shedding of the blood, noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity; and, the sprinkling of it on the Altar, and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice, [Page]or the whole there, that it was designed for the expiation of A sin. From whence it follows, that the phrase of a sweetsmelling savour, being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices, is very properly used by St. Paul, concerning Christs giving up himself for us: so that from this phrase, nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ, but rather it is fully agreeable to it.

But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument, to prove that Christs death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice; §. 8. What i [...]fluence the mactation of the sacrifice had on expiation. Crell. cap. 10. p 533. viz. That the notion of a sacrifice, doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of B God, to which the mactation is but a bare preparation; which he proves, Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests, Ezek. 44. 10, 11. but the oblation only to the Priests. To this I answer, 1. The mactation may be considered two ways, either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life, or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed: As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments, so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment; but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice, so the shedding of the blood, C hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin. And that by this clear Argument, The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul; and the reason given is, because the life Levit. 17. 11. of the flesh is in the blood: So that which was the life, is the great thing which makes the Atonement; and when the blood was shed, the life was then given; from whence it follows, that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end. Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to the [...] the shedding of the blood; and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar, or the Heb. 9. 22. D carrying it into the Holy of Holies, both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God, which was already shed for the expiation of sins, which was therefore necessary to be performed, that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation. For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts, which was the meanest part of the service, the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary, and least of all that of the High-Priest, unless some solemn action of his had been performed, E such as the entring into the Holy of Holies, on the day of expiation, and carrying it, and sprinkling the blood of the sin offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people. And it is observable, that although the Levitical Law be [Page] silent in the common Sacrifices, who were to kill them whether A the Priests or the Levites; yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin, it is expresly said, that he should not only kill, the bullock Levit. [...]6. 11, 15. of the sin-offering, which is for himself, but the goa [...] of the sin-offering, which is for the people. And although the Talmudists dispute from their Traditions on both sides, whether any one else might on the day of expiation, slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest; yet it is no news for them to dispute against the Text, and the Talmud it self is clear, that the High-Priest did it. From whence it appears, B Codex Ioma. cap 4. sect. 3. cap. 5 sect. 4. there was something peculiar on that day as to the slaying of the sin-offerings; and if our Adversaries opinion hold good, that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did, i [...] not a [...]one, yet chiefly represent the Sacrifice of Christ, no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is, for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at his carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies, but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too: from whence it will unavoidably follow [...], that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest, when he entred into Heaven, but when the Sacrifice was to be C be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins. It is then to no purpose at all, if Crellius could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices, (which he will not say, the Sacrifice of Christ was represented by) the Levites might kill the beasts for Sacrifice; for it appears, that in these Sacrifices, wherein themselves contend that Christs was represented, the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary, but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither. Therefore if we [...]peak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ, those D were the Iews, and we make not them Priests in it, for they aimed at no more than taking away his life (as the Popae among the Romans, and those whose bare Office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Iews did:) but if we consider it with a respect to him that offered up his life to God, then we say, that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it; it being designed for the expiation of sin; and by vertue of this bloodshed for that end, he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies, there ever living to make intercession for us. But the vertue of the consequent acts, depends upon the efficacy of the blood E shed for expiation; otherwise the High-Priest might have entred with the same effect into the Holy of Holies with any other blood besides that which was shed on purpose as a sin-offering, for expiation of the sins of the people; which it [Page] was unlawful for him to do. And from hence it is, that the A Apostle to the Hebrews insists so much on the comparison between the blood of Christ, and the blood of the legal sacrifices, and the efficacy of the one far above the other, in its power Heb. 9. 13, 14 1 [...]. 4, 10. of expiation; which he needed not to have done, if the shedding of his blood, had been only a preparation for his entrance on his Priesthood in Heaven. So that the proper notion of a Sacrifice for sin, as it notes the giving the life of one for the expiation of the sins of another, doth properly lye in the mactation, though other sacrificial acts may be consequent upon it. So it was in the animales hòstiae among the Romans, Ma [...]rob. Sat [...]a. l. 3. c. 5. B in which, saith Macrobius, Sola anima Deo sacratur: of which he tells us Virgil properly speaks in those words,

Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis.

And that we may the better understand what he means by the anima here, he saith elsewhere (as Macrobius and Servius observe out of his excellent skill and accuracy in the Pontifical rites) C

Sanguine placastis ventos & virgine caesa,

Cum primum Iliacas Danai venistic ad oras:

Sanguine quaerendi reditus, anima (que) litaendum

Argolica.

Which shews, that the expiation was supposed to lye in the blood which they called the Soul, as the Scripture doth. And the Persians as Strabo tells us, looked upon the bare mactation as the Sacrifice, for they did not porricere as the Romans called D it, they laid none of the parts of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to be consumed there, [...]. For God regarded nothing but the Soul in the sacrifice: Strabo l. 15. which words Eustathius likewise useth upon Homer; Eustath. i [...] Hom. Iliad. [...]. of the Sacrifices of the Magi. And Strabo affirms of the ancient Lusitani, that they cut off nothing of the Sacrifice: Strabo l. 3. but consumed the entrals whole; but though such Sacrifices which were for divination were not thought expiatory, and therefore different from the animales hostiae, yet among the Persians, every Sacrifice had a respect to expiation of the whole E people. For Herodotus tells us, that every one that offers Sacrifice among them, [...], prays for good to all Persians and the King. But thus Herod. l. 1. much may serve to prove against Crellius, that the mactation [Page] in an Expiatory Sacrifice, was not a meer preparation to a Sacrifice, A but that it was a proper Sacrificial act, and consequently that Christ acted as High-Priest, when he gave himself for us, an offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.

But this will further appear from those places wherein §. 9. Whether Christs Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven or on Earth. Christ is said to offer up himself once to God: the places to this purpose are. Heb. 7. 27. Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up Sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the Peoples, for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall B the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your Conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. V. 25, 26, 27, 28. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High-Priest entreth into the holy place every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World: but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed to men once to dye, but after this the Iudgement: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look C for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb. 10. 10, 11, 12. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all. And every High-Priest, standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God. To these places Crellius gives this answer, ‘That the name of Oblation as applyed to Cr [...]ll. cap. 10. sect. 54. Christ, primarily signifies Christs first entrance into Heaven, and appearance before the face of God there, but consequently D the continuance of that appearance; so that when a thing is once actually exhibited and presented, it is said to be once offered, although being offered, it always remains in the same place, and so may be said to be a continual Oblation. But this first appearance, saith he, hath a peculiar agreement with the legal Oblation; and therefore the name of Oblation doth most▪ properly belong to that, because Christ by this means obtained that power on which the perfect remission of our sins depends: but although the continuance of that appearance, seems only consequentially E to have the name of Oblation belonging to it, yet in i [...]s own nature, it hath a nearer conjunction with the effect of the Oblation, viz. the remission of sins, or deliverance from punishment, and doth of it self confer more to it than [Page] the other doth. And therefore in regard of that, Christ is A said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood, and to offer and intercede for us, from the time he is said to sit down at the right hand of God.’ Against this answer, I shall prove these two things, 1. That it is incoherent, and repugnant to it self. 2. That it by no means agrees to the places before mentioned. 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self in two things. 1. In making that to be the proper Oblation in correspondency to the Oblations of the Law, which hath no immediate respect to the expiation of sins. 2. In making that to have the most immediate respect to the expiation of B sins, which can in no tolerable sense be called an Oblation. For the first, since Crellius saith, that the proper notion of Oblation is to be taken from the Oblations in the Levitical [...]aw, we must consider what it was there, and whether Christs first entrance into Heaven can have any correspondency with it. An Oblation under the Law was in general, any thing which was immediately dedicated to God, but in a more limited sense it was proper to what was dedicated to him by way of Sacrifice according to the appointments of the Levitical Law. We are not now enquiring what was properly C called an Oblation in other Sacrifices, but in those which then were for expiation of sin; And in the Oblation was, first of the persons for whom the Sacrifice was offered. So in the Burnt-offering, the person who brought it, was to offer Lev. 1. 3. it at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation: i. e. as the Iews expound it at the entrance of the Court of the Priests, and there he was to lay his hands upon the head of it, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. This V. 4. Offering was made before the Beast was slain; after the killing the beast, then the Priests were to make an Offering of the D blood, by sprinkling it round about the Altar of Burnt-offerings, the rest of the blood, say the Iews, was poured out by the Priests, at the South-side of the Altar upon the foundation, where the two holes were for the passage into the Channel which conveyed the blood into the valley of Kidron: thus the blood being offered, the parts of the beast, were by the Priests to be laid upon the Altar, and there they were all to be consumed by fire; and then it was called an Offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. The same rites were used in the Peace-offerings, and Trespass-offerings, as E to the laying on of hands, and the sprinkling the blood, and consuming some part by fire: and in the sin-offerings, there was to be the same imposition of hands: but concerning the sprinkling of the blood, and the way of consuming the remainders [Page] of the Sacrifice, there was this considerable difference; A that in the common sin-offerings for particular persons, the blood was sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offerings, but in the sin-offerings for the High-Priest and the Lev. 4. 25, 30. Congregation, or all the People, he was to carry the blood within the Sanctuary, and to sprinkle of it seven times before the Vail of the Sanctuary; and some of the blood was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense; but the remainder V. 6. of the blood, and the same things (which were offered by fire in Peace-Offerings) were to be disposed of accordingly, on the Altar of Burnt-offerings. And withal, there was this B great difference, that in other sin-offerings the Priests were to eat the remainder of the sacrifice in the Holy place; but in these there was nothing to be eaten by them; for the whole Bullock L [...]vit. 6. 26. was to be carried forth without the Camp, and there he was to be burned till all were consumed. For it was an express Lev. 4. 11, 12. Law, That no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to reconcile withal in the Holy-place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire. Levit. 6. 30. All the difference that was on the great day of Atonement, was this, that the High Priest himself was to slay the Sin-offerings, C and then to carry the blood of them into the Holy of Holies, and there was to sprinkle the blood with his finger Lev 16. 14, 15. towards the Mercy-seat seven times: after which, and the sending away the scape-goat, the ceremonies were the same for the Atonement of the people, which were at other solemn sin-offerings, for the Priest or the people.

From all which being thus laid together, we shall observe several §. 10. All things necessary to a legal oblation concur in the death of Christ. things, which are very material to our purpose: 1. That in the oblations which were made for expiation of sins, the difference between the mactation and the oblation, did arise from the D difference between the Priest and the Sacrifice. For the Priests Office was to atone, but he was to atone by the Sacrifice; on which account, although the Priest were to offer the Sacrifice for himself, yet the oblation did not lie in the bare presenting himself before God, but in the presenting the blood of that Sacrifice, which was shed in order to expiation. If we could have supposed, that the High-Priest under the Law, instead of offering a Goat for a Sin-offering for the people, on the day of Atonement, should have made an oblation of himself to God, by dying for the expiation of their sins: In this case, his death being E the Sacrifice, and himself the Priest, the mactation, as it relates to his own act, and his oblation had been one and the same thing. For his death had been nothing else, but the offering up himself to God, in order to the expiation of the sins [Page] of the people; and there can be no reason, why the oblation A must be of necessity something consequent to his death, since all things necessary to a perfect oblation do concur in it. For where there is something solemnly devoted to God, and in order to the expiation of sins, and by the hand of a Priest, there are all things concurring to a legal oblation; but in this case, all these things do concur, and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ, only consequent to his Ascension, since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation. In the Law, we grant that the oblation made by the Priest, was consequent to the death B of the beast for Sacrifice; but the reason of that was, because the beast could not offer up it self to God, and God had made it necessary, that the Priest should expiate sins, not by himself, but by those Sacrifices, and therefore the oblation of the blood was after the Sacrifice was slain; neither could this have been solved barely by the Priests slaying of the Sacrifices; for this being an act of violence towards the beasts that were thus killed, could not be a proper oblation, which must suppose a consent antecedent to it. All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law, in which so many several C things were to concur, to make up a sacrifice for sin; viz. The first offering made by the party concerned, of what was under his dominion; viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation: but the beast not being able to offer up it self, it was necessary for the offering up its blood, that it must be slain by others; and for the better understanding, not only of the efficacy of the blood, but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation, he was to take the blood, and sprinkle some of it on the Altar, and pour out the rest at the foundation of it. But since we assert a far more D noble and excellent Sacrifice, by the Son of God freely offering up himself, to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world, why may not this be as proper an oblation made unto God, as any was under the Law, and far more excellent, both in regard of the Priest and the Sacrifice: why should his oblation of himself then be made only consequent to his death and resurrection? Which [...]latter, being by our Adversaries made not his own act, but Gods upon him, and his entrance into Heaven, being given him (as they assert) as a reward of his sufferings, in what tolerable sense can that be called an oblation E of himself, which was confer [...]ed upon him as a reward of his former sufferings? From whence it follows, that upon our Adversaries own grounds, the death of Christ may far more properly be called the oblation of himself, than his entrance[Page]into Heaven; and that there is no necessity of making A the oblation of Christ consequent to his death, there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ, and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law.

2. We observe, That the oblation as performed by the Priest, did not depend upon his presenting himself before God, but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice, which had been already slain for the expiation of sins. If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies, and there only presented himself before the Mercy-seat, and that had been all required in order to the expiation of sins, there had been some pretence for our B Adversaries making Christs presenting himself in Heaven, to be the oblation of himself to God; but under the Law, the efficacy of the High-Priests entrance into the Holy of Holies, did depend upon the blood which he carried in thither, which was the blood of the Sin-offering, which was already slain for the expiation of sins: And in correspondency to this, Christs efficacy in his entrance into Heaven, as it respects our expiation, must have a respect to that Sacrifice which was offered up to God antecedent to it. And I wonder our Adversaries do so much insist on the High-Priests entring into the most holy C place once a year, as though all the expiation had depended upon that; whereas all the promise of expiation, was not upon his bare entrance into it; but upon the blood which he carried along with him, and sprinkled there: In correspondency to which, our Saviour is not barely said, to enter into Heaven, and present himself to God, but that he did this Heb. 9. 12. by his own blood, having obtained Eternal Redemption for us.

3. We observe, That there was something correspondent in the death of Christ, to somewhat consequent to the oblation D under the Law, and therefore there can be no reason to suppose, that the oblation of Christ must be consequent to his death: for that destroys the correspondency between them. Now this appears in this particular, in the solemn Sacrifices for sin, after the sprinkling of the blood, which was carried into the Holy place to renconcile withal, all the remainder of the Sacrifice was to be burnt without the Camp, and this held on the day of Atonement, as well as in other Sin-offerings for the Congregation. Now the Author to the Hebrews tells us, That in correspondency to this, Iesus that he might sanctifie E the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate: What Heb. 13. 12. force is there in this, unless the blood of Christ did answer to the Sin-offerings for the people, and his oblation was supposed to be made before; and therefore that he might have all [Page] things agreeable to those Sin-offerings, the last part was to be A compleated too; viz. That he was to suffer without the gate; which after the peoples settlement in Ierusalem, answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness.

4. We observe, That the Oblation in Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, by the Priest, had always relation to the consumption of what was offered: Thus the offering of the blood, in token of the destruction of the life of the beast, whose blood was offered; for no blood was to be offered of a living creature, nor of one killed upon any other account, B but for that end to be a sacrifice for sin, and after the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood, the inwards of some, and all of the other, were to be consumed by fire. And it is observable, that the greater the Sacrifice for sin was, always the more was consumed of it; as appears plainly by the forementioned difference of the Sin-offerings for private persons, and for the people; of the former, the Priests were allowed to eat, but not at all of the latter. And so it was observed among the Egyptians, in the most solemn Sacrifices for expiation, nothing was allowed to be eaten of that part which was designed C for that end. For Herodotus gives us an account why the Egyptians never eat the head of any living Creature; which is, That when they [...]. Herodot. l 2. c. 39. offer up a Sacrifice, they make a solemn execration upon it, that if any evil were to fall upon the persons who Sacrificed, or upon all Egypt, it might be turned upon the head of that beast: And Plutarch adds, that after this solemn execration, [...]. Plutarch. de Iside. They cut off the head, and of old, threw D it into the River, but then gave it to strangers. From which custom we observe, that in a solemn Sacrifice for expiation, the guilt of the offenders, was by this rite of execration supposed to be transferred upon the head of the Sacrifice, as it was in the Sacrifices among the Jews, by the laying on of hands; and that nothing was to be eaten of what was supposed to have that guilt transferred upon it. From hence all Expiatory Sacrifices were at first whole Burnt-offerings, as appears by the Patriarchal Xenoph. Cy [...]opaed. l. 7. 8. Strab. l. 4. Plutarch. Symp. l. 6. probl. 8. Sacrifices, and the customs of other Nations, and among the E Jews themselves, as we have already proved in all solemn offerings for the people. And although in the sacrifices of private persons, some parts were allowed to be eaten by the Priests; yet those which were designed for expiation were consumed. [Page] So that the greater the offering was to God, the A more it implied the Consumption of the thing which was so offered: How strangely improbable then is it, That the Oblation of Christ should not (as under the Law) have respect to his death and sufferings; but to his entrance into Heaven, wherein nothing is supposed to be consumed, but all things given him with far greater power, as our Adversaries suppose, than ever he had before. But we see the Apostle parallels Christs suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices, and his blood with the blood of them, and consequently his offering up himself, must relate not to his entrance into Heaven, but B to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins, and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

From all which it appears; how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law, Christ is said to offer up himself §. 11. Chri [...]ts entrance into Heaven could not be the Oblation of himself mentioned. for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings, than by his entrance into Heaven; For it is apparent, that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend; but by our Adversaries own confession, Christs oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven, hath no immediate respect at all to the C expiation of sin: only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins, as Crellius saith; now, let us consider, what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations, than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For 1. on the very same reason that his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation, his death is so too; viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation; and far more properly so than the other, since they make Christs entrance and power the reward of his sufferings, but they never D make his sitting at the right hand of God, the reward of his entrance into Heaven. 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross, was his own act, but his entrance into Heaven was Gods, as themselves acknowledge, and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be called Christs offering up himself. 3. If it were his own act, it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins, which his death had; for our Adversaries say, that his death was by reason of our sins, and that he suffered to purge us from sin; but his entrance into Heaven was upon his own account, to enjoy that power and authority, E which he was to have at the right hand of God. 4. How could Christs entrance into Heaven, be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin, when Christ before his entrance into Heaven, saith, that all [Page]power was given to him in Heaven and earth: and the reason Matth. 28. 18. A assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God gave him is, because he humbled himself, and became obedient Phil. 2. 8, 9 to death, even the death of the Cross: So that the entrance of Christ into Heaven, could not be the means of obtaining that power which was conferred before; but the death of Christ is menti [...]ned on that account in Scripture. 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice, the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High-Priest; for his entrance into the Holy of Holies, was on the account of the blood of the sin-offering which he carried in with him. If there B were then no Expiatory Sacrifice before, that was slain for the sins of men; Christ could not be said to make any Oblation in Heaven, for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain; so that if men deny that Christs death was a proper Sacrifice for sin, he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven, and Christ could not be said to enter thither, as the High-Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacrifice; which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews, asserts concerning Christ.

2. There is as great an inconsistency in making the exercise C of Christs power in Heaven, an Oblation in any sense, as in §. 12. Christsexercise of power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God. making Christs entrance into Heaven, to be the Oblation which had correspondency with the Oblations of the Law. For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it? Hath it any respect to God, as all the legal Oblations had? no; for his intercession and power, Crellius saith, respects us, and not God. Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation? how is it possible, that the meer exercise of power should be called a Sacrifice? What analogy is there at all between them? And how could he be then said most D perfectly to exercise his Priesthood, when there was no consideration at all of any Sacrifice offered up to God? so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must argue upon strange similitudes, and fancy resemblances to himself, which it was impossible for the Iews to understand him in, who were to judge of the nature of Priesthood and Oblations in a way agreeable to the Institutions among themselves. But was it possible for them to understand such Oblations and a Priesthood which had no respect at all to God, but wholly to the People; and such an entrance into the Holy of Holies without the blood of an E Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the people? But such absurdities do men betray themselves into, when they are forced to strain express places of Scripture to serve an hypothesis, which they think themselves obliged to maintain.

[Page] We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius A §. 13. Crel [...]ius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the place [...]. Heb. 7. 27. 9. 26. 10. 10. doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mentioned, which will easily appear by these brief considerations. 1. That the Apostle always speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done, so as not to be done again; which had been very improper, if by the Oblation of Christ, he had meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us, which yet is, and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his foot-stool. 2. That he still speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Iews, and Heb. 9. 12, 13. 10. 4, 5. therefore the Oblation of Christ must be in such a way as was B agreeable to what was used in the Levitical Sacrifices, which we have already at large proved he could not do in our Adversaries sense. 3 That the Apostle speaks of such a Sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent; so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offered to God; and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins, which they say is meant by sitting at the right hand of God, cannot be that Heb. 10. 12. Sacrifice for sins: Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it, which in what sense it can be called a Sacrifice for sins, since C themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them, I cannot understand. 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once, which if it had been repeated, doth imply, that Christs sufferings must have been repeated too. For then must he often have suffered since Heb. 9. 26. the foundation of the World: but the repeated exercise of Christs power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christs frequent suffering, nor his frequent entrance into Heaven; which might have been done without suffering, therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself D as was implyed in his death and sufferings. 5. He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him when he Heb. 10. 5, 10 came into the World; but our Adversaries deny, that he carried the same Body into Heaven, and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven, but what was performed here on Earth. But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill, when they tell us with much confidence that the World into which Christ is here said to come, is not Crell. cap. 10. sect. 53. to be understood of this World, but of that to come, which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word E when taken absolutely as it is here, but to the whole scope and design of the place. For he speaks of that World, wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were used, and the Levitical Law was observed, although not sufficient for perfect expiation, [Page] and so rejected for that end; and withal he speaks of that A World wherein the chearful obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen, for he saith, Lo I come to do thy will O God, which is repeated afterwards; but will they say, that Heb 10. 7, 9. this World was not the place into which Christ came to obey the Will of his Father? and how could it be so properly said of the future World, Lo I come to do thy will; when they make the design of his ascension to be the receiving the reward of his doing and suffering the will of God upon Earth?

But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews, that Christs entrance into Heaven, was necessary to §. 14. Object [...]ons a [...]wered. [...]. 7 26. 8. 4 7. 16. B his being a perfect High-Priest; for he was to be made higher than the Heavens; and if he were on earth, he should not be a Priest; but he was a Priest after the power of an endless life: Neither could he, say they, be a perfect High-Priest, till those words were spoken to him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; which as appears by other places, was after the Resurrection: 5. 5. But all the sufferings he underwent in the world, were only to qualifie him for this Office in Heaven; therefore it is said, That in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his 2. 17. brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest, C &c. This is the substance of what is produced by Crellius and his Brethren, to prove that Christ did not become a perfect High-Priest, till he entred into Heaven: But it were Crell. cap. 10. sect. 53. worth the knowing, what they mean by a perfect High-Priest; Is it that Christ did then begin the Office of a High-Priest, and that he made no offering at all before? No, that they dare not assert at last, but that there was no perfect Sacrifice offered for sin, otherwise S [...]cinus contends, That Christ did offer upon earth, and that for himself too: So that all kind of offering is Soci [...]. p [...]aelect. c. [...]lt. not excluded by themselves, before Christs entrance into D Heaven: But if they mean by perfect High-Priest in Heaven, that his Office of High-Priest was not consummated by what he did on earth, but that a very considerable part of the Priest-hood of Christ was still remaining to be performed in Heaven; it is no more than we do freely acknowledge, and this is all we say is meant by those places: For the Apostles design is to prove, the excellency of the Priest-hood of Christ above the Aaronical; which he doth, not only from the excellency of the Sacrifice which he offered, above the blood of Bulls and Goats; but from the excellency of the Priest, who did ex [...]el the Aaronical E Priests; both in regard of his calling from God, which is all the Apostle designs, Heb 5. 5. not at all intending to determine the time when he was made, but by whom he was made High-Priest, even by him that had said, Thou art my Son, &c. and in regard of [Page] the excellency of the Sanctuary which he ent [...]ed into, which A was not an earthly, but ia heavenly Sanctu [...]ry; and in regard of the perpetuity of his function there, Not g [...]ing in once a year, as the High-Priests under the Law did, but there ever living to make intercession for us: Now this being the Apostles design, we may easily understand why he saith, That he was to be a heavenly High-Priest, and if he had been on earth, he could not have been a Priest: The meaning of which is only this, that if Christs Office had ended in what he did on earth, he would not have had such an excellency as he was speaking of; for then he had ceased to be at all such a High-Priest, having B no Holy of Holies to go into, which should as much transcend the earthly Sanctuary, as his Sacrifice did the blood of Bulls and Goats: Therefore in correspondency to that Priesthood, which he did so far excell in all the parts of it, he was not to end his Priesthood meerly with the blood which was shed for a Sacrifice, but he was to carry it into Heaven, and present it before God, and to be a perpetual Intercessor in the behalf of his people: And so was in regard of the perpetuity of his Office, a Priest after the Law of an endlesslife: But lest the pe [...]ple should imagine, that so great and excellent a High-Priest, being C so far exalted above them, should have no sense or compassion upon the infirmities of his people, therefore to encourage them to adhere to him, he tells them, That he was made like to his Brethren; and therefore they need not doubt, but by the sense which he had of the infirmities of humane nature, he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people; which is all the Apostle means by those expressions. So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth, but only assert the excellency, and the continuance of it in heaven: Which latter, we are as far from denying, as our Adversaries D are from granting the former. And thus much may suffice for the second thing, to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin; viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it. E

CHAP. VI. A

[Page]

That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ, which either respect the sin or the person. Of the true notion of expiation of sin, as attributed to Sacrifices. Of the importance of [...], as applied to them. Socinus his proper sense of it examined. Crellius his Objections answered. The Iews notion of [...]. The Sacrifices not bare B conditions of pardon, nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience. Gods expiating sin, destroys not expiation by Sacrifice. The importance of [...] and [...], relating to Sacrifices. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices: and from thence, and the places of Scripture which mention it, proved not to be meerly declarative. If it had been so, it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death. The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it; because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in C Scripture, and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God. The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, respecting the person, belong to the death of Christ, which are Atonement and Reconciliation. Of the signification of [...] and [...]. The Reconciliation by Christs death, doth not meerly respect us, but God; why the latter lessused in the Now Testament. Atwofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture. Crellius his evasion D answered. The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son, and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered, and the whole concluded.

THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice, is, That the effects of a proper §. 1. Of the true notion of Expiation, as attributed to Sacrifices. Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it. Which do either respect the sins committed, and are then E called Expiation and Remission, or the persons who were guilty of them, as they stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation. Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to [Page] the death of Christ; and are attributed to it, as the procuring A cause of them; and not as a bare condition of Christs entrance into Heaven, or as comprehending in it the consequents of it. I begin with the Expiation and Remission of sins; as to which Socinus doth acknowledge, That the great correspondency doth Soci [...]. de Christo servat. p. 2. l. 13. C [...]ell. cap. 10. sect. 26. lie between Christs and the Legal Sacrifices. We are therefore to enquire: 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law. 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins in attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ: For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices, we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood, B and in what respect it is attributed to them. For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set sorth by, which are [...] and [...] in the Old Testament, [...] in the New; all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the Expiation made by a Sacrifice. We shall begin with the former, because Crellius objects this against Grotius, That he imployed Crell. cap. 10. sect. 38. his greatest diligence in the explication of the Greek and Latin words for Expiation of sin, and was contented only to say, that the Hebrew words would bear the same signification: Whereas, C saith he, he ought to have proved, that the Hebrew words do require that sense which he takes them in. But by Crellius his leave, Grotius took the best course was to be taken in words, whose signification is so obscure as those are in the Hebrew Language. For [...] being so very rarely used in Scripture in that which Socinus and Crellius contend to be the proper and natural signification of it; viz. To hide or cover, and so frequently in the sense of Expiation, what better way could be taken for determining the sense of it, as applied to Sacrifices, than by insisting upon those words which are used in the New-Testament, D to the very same purpose that [...] is used in the old? For they cannot pretend that which they say is the most proper sense, can be applied to this subject, viz. To cover with pitch, or a bituminous matter, which is called [...] Gen. 6. 14. therefore it must of necessity be taken in another sense here. But Socinus contends, That it ought to be taken in a sense most agreeable to that, which is, saith he, that the Expiation Soci [...]. de Servat. p. 2. c. 11. of sin be nothing else, but the covering of it, by Gods grace and benignity. Thence, saith he, David saith, Blessed Psal. 32. 1. is the man whose iniquity is covered. But how can this prove, E that the proper signification of [...] as applied to sin, is covering by Gods Grace, when neither the word [...] is here used, nor is there any respect at all mentioned of an Expiation by Sacrifice, which is the thing we are discoursing of? And is the [Page] covering of sin such an easie and intelligible phrase, that this A should be made choice of to explain the difficulty of [...] by? What is it that they would have us understand by the covering sin? surely not to make it stronger and more lasting, as the Ark was covered, with that bituminous matter for that end, and yet this would come the nearest to the proper sense of [...]. So that from their own interpretation it appears, that [...] as applied to the expiation of sin by Sacrifices, cannot be taken so much as in allusion to that other sense; for their sense of Expiation, is either by the destruction of sin, or deliverance of the sinner from the punishment of it, but what resemblance B is there between the covering of a thing, in order to its preservation, and the making it not to be, or at least destroying all the power of it? But supposing we should grant that it hath some allusion to the sense of covering, why must it necessarily be supposed to be done by the meer Grace of God, as excluding all antecedent causes which should move to it? would not the propriety of the sense remain as well, supposing a moving cause, as excluding it? What should hinder, but that God may be said as well to cover sin upon a Sacrifice as to forgive it, and this is very frequently used upon a Sacrifice, That the Lev. 4. 26. Verse 31. 35. C sin shall be forgiven? But yet themselves acknowledge, that the Sacrifices were conditions required in order to expiation; if then [...] hath an immediate respect to Gods immediate favour and benignity, how comes it to be used where a condition is necessarily supposed in order to it? Had it not been more agreeable to this benignity of God to have pardon'd sin without requiring any sacrifice for it, than so strictly insisting upon the offering up Sacrifice in order to it, and then declaring that the sin is expiated, and it should be forgiven? from hence we see that there is no necessity why [...] should be used D as applyed to sacrifices in a sense most agreeable to that of covering with pitch, nor that it is not possible it should have such a sense when applyed to sins; and withal that it is very consistent with an antecedent condition to it, and therefore can by no means destroy satisfaction.

Yes, saith Crellius, it doth, for expiation is explained in the Crellius his O [...]j [...]ctions answered. Law by non-imputation, Deut. 21. 8. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel wh [...]m thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent §. 2. Cr [...]ll. c. 10. sect. 9. blood unto thy people of Israels charge; and the blood shall be forgiven them. But not to impute, saith he, and to receive true and E full satisfaction overthrow each other: and so expiation being the same with that, will overthrow it too. To this I answer, 1. I grant that [...] is here used both as applyed to God, and to the sin, and that the sense of it is used as to the people, when [Page] the prayer is, that God would not lay it to their charge, which is A the same with expiating of it. 2. We are to consider, what the foundation of this Prayer was, viz. the slaying of the Heifer for expiation of the uncertain murder; and when the Elders had washed their hands over the head of the Heifer, then they were to protest their own innocency, and to use this prayer. [...] Expiate thy people Israel, &c. i. e. accept of this Sacrifice as an expiation for them, and so charge not on them the innocent blood, &c. and upon doing of this it is said, [...] and the blood shall be expiated, i. e. as the Vulgar Latin explain it, the guilt of the blood shall be taken from B them. But how then should the expiating sin upon a Sacrifice slain in order thereto, dest [...]oy that satisfaction which we assert by the blood of Christ being shed in order to the expiation of our sins? Nay, it much rather sheweth the consistency and agreeableness of these one with another. For we have before proved, that the Sacrifice here did expiate the sin by a substitution, and bearing the guilt which could not have been expiated without it. But Crellius further urgeth, that God himself is here said to expiate, and therefore to expiate cannot signifie to attone or satisfie; in which sense Christ may be said to expiate C too, not by atoning or satisfying, but by not imputing sins, or taking away the punishment of them by his power. To which we need no other answer than what Crellius himself elsewhere gives, viz. that Socinus never denyes but that [...] doth signifie to appease or atone; which is most evi [...]ently proved from the place mention'd by Grotius, Gen. 32. 20. [...] Cum ro [...] neget, Socinus hoc verb [...]m placandi significationem habere. Crell. c. 20. sect. 38. Expiabo faciem ejus in munere, saith the interlineary Version, placabo illum muneribus, the Vulg. Lat. [...], the LXX. and all the circumstances of the place make it appear to be meant in the proper sense of appeasing the anger D of a person by something which may move him to shew favour. And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ, he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction. But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ, which is alone given to God, wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice: rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another? since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice; and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him, which was E most peculiar to that; which we shall now shew to be of the same kind with what is here mentioned, viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God. So we find the word used to the same sense, 2 Sam. 21. 3. [...], and [Page]wherewith shall I make the Atonement, i. e. wherewith shall A I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you? and we see afterwards it was by the death of Sauls sons. In which place it cannot be denyed but that [...] not only signifies to appease, but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others; and so comes home, not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general; but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others. Which though it be more clear and distinct, where one man suffers for others, yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the B Law, in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders.

And in this sense the Iews themselves do understand [...] viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the §. 3. The Iew [...] notion of [...] place of another. Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf, wherein [...] is taken by the Rabbinical Writers for such an expiation, whereby one was to undergo a punishment Buxtorf. [...]exic. Talmud. v. [...] in the place of another. So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest [...] simus nos expiatio tua, let us be for an expiation for you, the Gloss explains it C thus, hoc est, in nobis fiat expiatio tua, nos (que) subeamus tuo locò quicquid tibi evenire debet. And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death, they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers, they are not barely to say, My Father said so: but my Lord and Father said so, would I had been the expiation of his death: i. e. as they explain it themselves. would I had undergone what he did, and they give this general rule, Where ever it is said, behold I am for expiation, it is to be understood, behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities. So that this signifies D the same with [...] or a price of redemption for others. Hence [...] is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another, and rendred by [...], Exod. 21. 30.—30. 12. Numb. 35. 31, 32. where we render it satisfaction, and by [...], Psal. 48. 7. and thereby we fully understand, what our Saviour meant when he said, that he gave his Soul, [...], a ransome for many, and to this day the Iews call the Cock which they kill Matth. 20. 28. for Expiation on the day of Atonement, by the name of Cappara; and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice, they every time use words to this purpose, Let this Cock be an E exchange for me, let him be in my room, and be made an Expiation for me; let death come to him, but to me and all Israel life and happiness. I insist on these things, only to let us understand, that the Iews never understood [...] in the sense our [Page] Adversaries contend for, when applyed to an Expiatory Sacrifice, A but as implying a Commutation, and a Substitution of one in the place of another, so as by the punishment of that, the other in whose room he suffers, may obtain deliverance. Which is the sense we plead for. But the utmost which Socinus and Socia. l. 2. c. 11. Doc [...]t Socinus victima [...]um oblationem obedientiam quandam Deo praestandam, quanq [...]am lev [...]m contin [...]isse, quam ex [...]romisso Dei levium quoru [...]dam errator [...]m ac peccatorum venia co [...]se [...]eretur. Creli. c. 10. sect. 10. Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation, is barely this, That the offering of them is to be considered as a meer condition (that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins, than the paring a mans nails would have had, if God had required it) upon which slight obedience, the pardon of some light sins might be obtained. But can any one imagine, that B this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old, who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law, the great severity by which they were required under the Law, the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them, the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them, but above all, the reason that God himself assigns in the Law, That the blood was given for expiation, because it was the life; and the correspondency so clearly expressed in the New Testament, between the Sacrifice of Christ, and those Levitical Sacrifices? C Can any one, I say, imagine upon these considerations, that the Sacrifices had no other respect to the expiation of sin, than as they were a slight testimony of their obedience to God? Why were not an inward sorrow for sin, and tears and prayers rather made the only conditions of Expiation, than such a burthensome and chargeable service imposed upon them, which at last signified nothing, but that a command being supposed, they would have sinned if they had broken it? But upon our supposition, a reasonable account is given of all the expiatory Sacrifices; viz. That God would have them see, how D highly he esteemed his Laws, because an expiation was not to be made for the breach of them, but by the sacrificing of the life of some Creature which he should appoint in stead of the death of the Offender; and if the breach of those Laws which he had given them must require such an expiation, what might they then think would the sins of the whole world do, which must be expiated by a Sacrifice infinitely greater than all those put together were; viz. The death and sufferings of the Son of God for the sins of men? But if the offering Sacrifice had been a bare condition required of the person who committed E the fault, in order to expiation; Why is it never said, That the person who offered it, did expiate his own fault thereby? For that had been the most proper sense; for if the expiation did depend on the offering the Sacrifice, as on the [Page] condition of it, then the performing the condition, gave him A an immediate right to the benefit of the promise. If it be said, That his own act was not only necessary in bringing the Sacrifice, but the Priests also in offering up the blood: This will not make it at all the more reasonable; because the pardon of sin should not only depend upon a mans own act, but upon the act of another, which he could not in reason be accountable for, if he miscarried in it. If the Priest should refuse to do his part, or be unfit to do it, or break some Law in the doing of it, how hard would it seem that a mans sins could not be expiated, when he had done all that lay in his own power in order to the expiation B of them, but that another person, whose actions he had no command over, neglected the doing his duty? So that if the Sacrifice had no other influence on expiation, but as a part of obedience, in all reason the expiation should have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him, whose sins were to be expiated by it.

But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation, That if it §. 4. G [...]d [...] ex [...]i [...] ting sin, des [...]o [...]es n [...] ex [...]xp [...]ation by sacrifices. C [...]ell. ib. sect. 39. were by Substitution, then the Expiation would be most properly attributed to the Sacrifices themselves; whereas it is only said, that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is obtained, but that God or C the Priest do expiate; and to God it belongs properly, because he takes away the guilt and punishment of sin; which is, saith he, all meant by expiation; to the Priest only consequently, as doing what God requires in order to it; and to the Sacrifices only as the conditions by which it was obtained. But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God, and implies no more than bare pardon, it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice: but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us, that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of H [...]b. 9. 22. blood, so that without that there was no remission. How improperly D doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter, wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purisying, and in correspondency to that, the blood of Christ purging Verse 1 [...], 14. Verse 18, 19, 20, 21, 23. our Consciences; and that all things under the Law; were purified with blood; Had all this no other significati [...]n, but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance, but as a meer act of obedience when God had required it? why doth not the Apostle rather say, without Gods favour there is no remission, than without the shedding of blood; if all the expiation did pr [...]perly belong to that, and only very remotely to the blood E of the Sacrifice? What imaginable necessity was there, that Christ must shed his blood in order to the expiation of our sins, if all that blo [...]d of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon, though a slight part of obedience [Page] in it self? Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency A to these Levitical Sacrifices? for that was surely no slight part of his obedience. Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him, since our Adversaries say, that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin? And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel, that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son, although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world? But upon this supposition, that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation, the Apostles B discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds. For what necessity in the thing was there, because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law, therefore the blood of Christ must be so now; although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end? But the Apostles words and way of Argumentation doth imply, that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other, in order to Expiation; although a far greater in the blood of Christ, than could be in the other; as the thing typified, ought to exceed that which was the representation of it. From hence we see, C that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law, not immediately to God, as belonging properly to him, but to the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean. Which he had very great reason to do, since God expresly saith to the Iews, that the blood was given them [...] ad expiandum, to expiate for their souls, for the blood [...] shall expiate the soul. Than which words, nothing Lev. 17. 11. could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion, that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices, but primarily to God, and consequentially D to the Priest: who is never said to expiate, but by the Sacrifice which he offered, so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it. But from this we may easily understand, in what sense God is said to expiate sins, where it hath respect to a Sacrifice (which is that we are now discoursing of, and not in any larger or more improper use of the word) for since God himself hath declared, that the blood was given for Expiation, the Expiation which belongs to God, must imply his acceptance of it for that end, for which it was offered. For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him, he may be said in that sense to E expiate, because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins. And we do not say, that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement, that it doth imply his undergoing [Page] any punishment which is impossible to suppose; but that A where it is attributed to a Sacrifice, as the means of Atonement, there we say it doth not imply a bare condition, but such a Substitution of one in the place of another, that on the account of that, the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby.

And to this sense the other word [...] doth very well agree; §. 5. The importance of [...], and [...], relating to sacrifices. for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny, but that Gen. 31. 39. it properly signifies Luere, or to bear punishment; although they say, it no where else signifies so, and the reason is, because it is applyed to the Altar, and such other things, which are not capable of it; but doth it hence follow, that it should B not retain that signification where the matter will bear it, as in the case of Sacrifices. And although it be frequently rendred by [...], yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices, because those words when used concerning them, do signifie Expiation too. ‘Grotius proves, that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek Authors, not only signifie an antecedency of order, but a peculiar efficacy in order to Expiation. Thence expiatory Sacrifices among the Greeks were called [...], and [...], frequently in Homer, C applied to Sacrifices, [...] in Plutarch, and [...] used in the same sense; an Expiatory Sacrifice in Herodotus is call'd [...], and to the same purpose it is used in Hermogenes, Plato and Plutarch: as among the Latins, placare, purgare, purificare, conciliare, lustrare in the same sense, and piare when used in Sacrifices, he proves to signifie Luere per successionem rei alterius in locum poenae debitae. Thence piaculum used for an Expiatory Sacrifice, and expiare is to appease by such a Sacrifice, so Cereris numen expiare is used in Cicero; filium expiare in Livy. So that all D these Sacrifices among them, were supposed still to pertain to the atoning the Deity, and obtaining a remission of sins committed by them. And from hence (because where there was a greater equality and nearness, there might be the greater efficacy of the Sacrifice for expiation) came the custome of sacrificing men, which Grotius at large shews to have almost universally obtained before the coming of Christ.’ We are now to consider what Crellius answers to this; the substance of which lies in these two things, 1. He denies not but that [...] and [...] do in their proper use in the Greek Crell. c. 10. sect. 23. & 24. E Tongue signifie the purging of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment, but that those and such other words are attributed to Sacrifices, because those were supposed to be the effects of them among the Heathens; [Page]but the attributing such effects to them, did arise from their A superstition, whereby greater things were attributed to Sacrifices, than God would have given to them, either before or under the Law. 2. He denyes not, but that those words, [...] and [...], being used by the Author to the Hebrews more than Ita (que) quod ad [...]es Graecas [...] & [...] attinet, quic [...]s i [...] hoc ar [...]u [...]nto non semel [...]titur D. scriptor ad Heb. t [...] ad Christi Sacrifici [...] & Sac [...]rd [...]i [...]ctionem relatae [...]o etiam [...] [...]s [...]r [...]antur q [...]m Graeca [...]i [...]gua recep [...]rat, b. c. de [...]xp [...]gatio [...]e r [...]atus & aversio [...] irae n [...]mi [...]is a [...]t p [...]ae. Crell. c. 10. p. 499. once with respect to the Sacrifices and Priesth [...]od of Christ, were taken in the same sense in which they are used in the Greek Tongue, viz. For the purging of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and the punishment consequent upon it: But all that he contends for is, That there is a difference in the manner of effecting it, which he acknowledges the words themselves B do not imply; and the reasons he gives for it are, That the other were proper, but Christs an improper Sacrifice; and that the other Sacrifices were offered by men to God, but the Sacrifice of Christ was given by God to men, and therefore he must be supposed to be reconciled before. From whence he would at least have other senses of these words joyned together with the former; viz. Either for purging away the filth of sin, or for a declaration of a deliverance from guilt and punishment, in imitation of the Idiome of the Hebrew, in which many words are used in the New Testament. From hence it follows, that Crellius C doth yield the main cause, if it appear, that Christ did offer up an Expiatory Sacrifice to God in his death, for then he grants that [...] and [...] being applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ, are to be taken for the purging away of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and the punishment of sin. And it is to no purpose to say, that it is not a proper Sacrifice, for if the effects of a proper Sacrifice do belong to it, that proves that it is so; for these words being acknowledged to be applyed to the Sacrifice of Christ by the Author to the Hebrews, what could more evince that Christs D was a proper Sacrifice, than that those things are attributed to it, which by the consent of all Nations, are said to belong to proper Sacrifices, and that in the very same sense in which they are used by those who understood them in the most proper sense. And what reason could Crellius have to say, that it was only the superstition of the Heathens, which made them attribute such effects to sacrifices; when himself acknowledges that the very same sense doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ under that notion? and as to the Iews we have already proved that the sense of expiation among them was by vertue of the E Law to be taken in as proper a sense as among the Heathens, for the purging of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God. And why should Crellius deny that effect of the Sacrifice of Christ as to the atonement of God, because [Page]Gods love was seen in giving him who was to offer the Sacrifice? A since that effect is attributed to those Sacrifices under the Law which God himself appointed to be offered, and shewed his great kindness to the people in the Institution of such a way, whereby their sins might be expiated, and they delivered from the punishment of them. But of the consistency of these two, I shall speak more afterwards, in the effect of the Sacrifices as relating to Persons.

We now come to consider in what sense the expiation of sins §. 8. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices. is in Scripture attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, and therein I shall prove these two things. 1. That the expiation is B attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that is attributed to other Sacrifices, and as the words in themselves do signifie. 2. That what is so attributed doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ in his death, antecedent to his entrance into Heaven. 1. That the expiation is to be taken in a proper sense, when it is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ. Crellius tells us, the controversie is not about the thing, viz. whether Crell. c. 10. sect. 24. expiation in the sense we take it in for purging away guilt, and aversion of the wrath of God, doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ, for he acknowledges it doth; but all the question is about C the manner of it: which in the next Section he thus explains: There are three senses in which Christ may be said to expiate sins; either by begetting Faith in us, whereby we are drawn off from the practice of sin, in which sense, he saith, it is a remoter antecedent to it; or as it relates to the expiation by actual deliverance from punishment, so he saith, it is an immediate antecedent to it: or as he declares that they are expiated, but this, he saith, doth not so properly relate to Christ as a Sacrifice, but as a Priest. But never a one of these senses comes near to that which Crellius grants to be the proper importance D of [...] and [...], as applyed to a Sacrifice, viz. the purging away guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and punishment, not any way, but by the means of the Sacrifice offered. For in the Legal Sacrifices nothing can be more plain than that the expiation was to be by the Sacrifice offered for Atonement: supposing then that in some other way (which could be by no means proper to those Sacrifices) Christ may be said to expiate sins, what doth this prove that there was an expiation belonging to his Sacrifice agreeable to the Sacrifices of old? But as I urged before in the case of Christs E being High-Priest, that by their assertions the Iews might utte [...]ly deny the force of any argument used by the Author to the Hebrews to prove it: so I say as to the expiation by Christs Sacrifice, that it hath no analogy or correspondency at all [Page] with any Sacrifice that was ever offered for the expiation of A sins. For by that they always understood something which was immediately offered to God for that end, upon which they obtained remission of sins; but here is nothing answerable to it in their sense of Christs Sacrifice; for here is no Oblation at all made unto God for this end; all the efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ, in order to expiation doth wholly and immediately respect us; so that if it be a proper Sacrifice to any, it must be a Sacrifice to us, and not to God: for a Sacrifice is always said to be made to him whom it doth immediately respect; but Christ in the planting Faith, in actual B deliverance, in declaring to us this deliverance, doth wholly respect us, and therefore his Sacrifice must be made to men, and not to God. Which is in it self a gross absurdity, and repugnant to the nature and design of Sacrifices from the first institution of them; which were always esteemed such immediate parts of divine Worship, that they ought to respect none else but God, as the object to which they were directed, though for the benefit and advantage of Mankind. As well then might Christ be said to pray for us, and by that no more be meant but that he doth teach us to understand our duty; as be C made an expiatory Sacrifice for us, and all the effect of it only respect us and not God. And this is so far from adding to the perfection of Christs Sacrifice above the Legal (which is the thing pleaded by Crellius) that it destroys the very nature of a Sacrifice, if such a way of expiation be attributed to it Crell. c. 10. sect. 26. (which though conceived to be more excellent in it self) yet is wholly incongruous to the end and design of a Sacrifice for Expiation. And the excellency of the manner of expiation ought to be in the same kind, and not quite of another nature; for, will any one say, that a General of an Army hath D a more excellent conduct than all that went before him, because he can make finer speeches; or that the Assomanaean Family discharged the Office of Priesthood best, because they had a greater power over the people; or that Nero was the most excellent Emperour of Rome because he excelled the rest in Musick and Poetry: by which we see that to assert an excellency of one above another, we must not go to another kind, but shew its excellency in that wherein the comparison lies: So that this doth not prove the excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ, because he hath a greater power to perswade, deliver E and govern, than any Sacrifice under the Law; for these are things quite of another nature from the consideration of a Sacrifice: But therein the excellency of a Sacrifice is to be demonstrated, that it excells all other in the proper end and dedesign [Page] of a Sacrifice, i. e. if it be more effectual towards God for A obtaining the expiation of sin; which was always thought to be the proper end of all Sacrifices for expiation. Although then Christ may be allowed to excell all other Sacrifices in all imaginable respects but that which is the proper intention of a Sacrifice; it may prove far greater excellency in Christ, but it doth withal prove a greater imperfection in his Sacrifice, if it fail in that which is the proper end of it. So that if we should grant that the expiation attributed to Christs Sacrifice signified no more than reclaiming men from their sins, or their deliverance by his power, or a declaration of Gods decree to pardon, B this may prove that there are better arguments to believe the remission of sins now under the Gospel; but they do not in the least prove that Christ is to be considered as a Sacrifice; much less that he doth far excell in the notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice all those which were offered up to God for that end under the Law.

But we must now further consider, whether this be all attributed to Christ in order to expiation in Scripture; i. e. Whether §. 7. Expiation by Christ not meerly declara [...]ive. those words which of themselves do imply the aversion of the wrath of God, when used concerning other Sacrifices, C when applied to the Sacrifice of Christ, do only imply the begetting faith in us, or a declaration of pardon. The words which are used to this purpose, are [...], which are all applied to the blood of Christ, and the dispute is, whether they signifie no more but a declaration of pardon, or a means to beget saith in us. The first words [...] and [...] Crellius acknowledgeth do frequently signifie deliverance from guilt and punishment; but, he saith, they may Crell. cap. 10. sect. 28. p 506. likewise signifie a declaration of that deliverance, as decreed by God, or a purging from the sins themselves, or from the D custom of sinning. So that by Crellius his own confession, the sense we contend for is most proper and usual, the other are more remote, and only possible; why then should we forsake the former sense, which doth most perfectly agree to the nature of a Sacrifice, which the other senses have no such relation to, as that hath? For these being the words made use of in the New Testament, to imply the force and efficacy of a Sacrifice, why should they not be understood in the same sense which the Hebrew words were taken in, when they are applied to the Sacrifices under the Law? We are not E enquiring into all possible senses of words, but into the most natural and agreeable to the scope of them that use them: and that we shall make it appear to be the same, we plead for in the places in dispute between us; as, 1 John 1. 7. The blood [Page]of Iesus Christ his Son, [...], purgeth A us from all sin, Heb. 9. 13, 14. If the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, [...], sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works, [...], Heb. 1. 3. [...], when he had by himself purged our sins. So [...] and [...] are used with a respect to the blood of Christ, Heb. 10. 22. Apocalip. 1. 5. And because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law; B therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ, Matth. 26. 28, This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many, [...], for the remission of sins, Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, and to the same purpose, Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood, Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is, That those words which do properly signifie the thing Crell. cap. 10. sect. 28. it self, may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration C of it, when the performance of the thing doth follow by vertue of that declartaion: which then happens, when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another, and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it. And in this sense, Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins, by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose. But this answer is by no means sufficient, upon these considerations; 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words, as Crellius himself confesseth; and yet he assigns no reason D at all, why we ought to depart from it, unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient. But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins, to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these, which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert? If the most proper expressions for this purpose, are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries, none else could ever do it: so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms, but they would have found out ways to evade E the meaning of them. It seems very strange, that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice, but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin, if nothing else were meant by it, but that Christ by his death [Page] did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin? If there A were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense, why are they so frequently used to this purpose? why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us, and tell us plainly, that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will? but what ever other words might signifie, this was the only true meaning of them. But what miserable shifts are these, when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine, only by saying that they may be otherwise understood? which destroys all kind of certainty in words; which by reason of the various use B of them, may be interpreted to so many several senses, that if this liberty be allowed, upon no other pretence, but that another meaning is possible, men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking. For upon the same reason, if it had been said, That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon, it might have been interpreted, That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon, because it was the consideration upon which God would do it: So that if the words had been as express for them, as they are now against them, according to their way of answering C places, they would have been reconcileable to our opinion. 2. The Scripture in these expressionś, doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ; but if all that were meant by it were no more, than the declaring Gods will to pardon, this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it. For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ, and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine, which concerned remission of sins as well as any other: but how absurd would it have been to say, that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin, that D through Christ healing the sick, raising the dead, &c. we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, which are attributed to the blood of Christ? but if in no other respect, than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins, they were equally applicable to one as to the other. Besides, if this had been all intended in these expressions, they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ; nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins, which was declared by it, than that very thing by which it was declared, if no more were intended by it: E For how unsuitable [...]a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons, by such severities used towards the most Innocent! Who could believe, that God should declare his willingness to pardon others, by the death of his own Son; unless [Page] that death of his be considered as the Meritorious cause for A procuring it? And in that sense we acknowledge, That the death of Christ was a declaration of Gods will and decree to pardon, but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine (for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin, as well as the blood of Christ) but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon. And so as the acceptance of the condition required, or the price paid, may be [...]aid to declare or manifest, the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive: So Gods acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes, B may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account. But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering; but to the act of God in accepting: and it can be no other ways known, than Gods acceptance is known; which was not by the Sufferings, but by the Resurrection of Christ. And theref [...]re the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon, doth properly belong to that: and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant, by purging of sin by the blood of Christ, it had been very incongruously applied to that, but most properly to his Resurrection. But C these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God; and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ, which cannot be said properly to do it; nothing can be more plain, than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense; viz. That Expiation of sin, which doth belong to the death of Christ, as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterfuge. (For therein lies their great art, in seeking rather by any §. 8. The death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the consequents of it. means to escape their enemies, than to overcome them.) D For being sensible, that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them, they seldom, and but very weakly assault: but shew all their subtilty in avoiding by all imaginable arts, the force of what is brought against them. And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ, when no other answer will serve turn, then they tell us, That the death of Christ is C [...]ell. cap. 1. sect. 103. Sect. 119. c. 10 Sect. 45. p. 527. taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death; viz. His Resurrection, Exaltation, and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father. But how is it E possible to convince those, who by death, can understand life; by sufferings, can mean glory, and by the shedding of blood, sitting at the right hand of God? And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations, [Page] will appear by these considerations; 1. because the effect A of Expiation of our sins, is attributed to the death of Christ, as distinct from his Resurrection.; viz. Our reconciliation with God, Rom. 5. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. To which Crellius answers, That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Crell. cap. 1. sect. 112. Christ alone, or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it; but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening. But nothing can be more evident to any one, who considers the design of the Apostles B discourse, than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ: for therefore it is said, that Christ dyed for Rom. 5. v. 6. the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye: but God comm [...]ndeth his love towards us, in that while we 7. 8. 9. were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us. Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved through him; upon which those words follow, For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, &c. 10. The Reconciliation here mentioned, is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense, that it is mentioned before; C but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order to something farther; but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ; of God, in sending his Son; of Christ, in laying down his life for sinners, in order to their being justified by his blood. But where is it that St. Paul saith, that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins, but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he should expiate sins? what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ, if all the benefits we enjoy D depend upon the consequences of it; and no otherwise upon that, than meerly as a preparation for it? what peculiar emphasis were there in Christs dying for sinners, and for the ungodly; unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins? Why are men said to be justified by his blood, and not much rather by his glorious Resurrection, if the blood of Christ be only considered as antecedent to the other? And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage: which could not have been the death E in this sense, but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place, viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life; but [Page]that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of A one of which the death of Christ did intervene, but it should not intervene for the other; viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation, but it should not for our life. For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation? was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ, and our reconciliation in order to that end? what opposition then can be imagined, that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other? But he means, that the death of Christ should not intervene anymore; what B need that, when it is acknowledged by themselves, that Christ dyed only for this end before, that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him? But the main force of the Apostles argument lies in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation, and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled; so that if he had so much kindness for enemies, to dye for their reconciliation, we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation, in the eternal salvation C of them that obey him. By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self, having influence upon our reconciliation; and doth not consider it metonymically as comprehending in it, the consequents of it.

2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death, viz. his sitting §. 9. Expiation attributed to Christ antecedently to his entrance into heaven. at the right hand of God. Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins, sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high. Heb. 9. 12. But by his own blood he entred in D once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. To these places Crellius gives a double answer. 1. That indefinite particles ( [...] and [...]) being Crell. cap. 10. sect. 50. joyned with Verbs of the praeterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them, should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned; but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense; which sometimes happens in particles of the praeterperfect tense, as Matth. 10. 5. [...] so [...]; and several other instances produced by him: E according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words, Heb. 9. 12. is, Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies, and in so doing he found eternal redemption, or the expiation of sins. But not [Page] to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist A being joyned with a Verb of the praeterperfect tense, which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it, as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius; but according to his sense of Christs expiation of sin, it was yet to come after Christs entrance into Heaven, and so it should have been more properly [...] than [...]; not I say to insist upon that, the Apostle manifests, that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption, by his following discourse: for v. 14. he compares the blood of B Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin, with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices: whereas if the expiation meant by him had been sound by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven, he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it, with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies, and his argument had run thus. For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies; How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind: but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us; but he presently C speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it, and as plainly asserts the same, v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Why doth the Apostle here speak of the [...], the expiation of sins by the means of death; if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death, but by his entrance into Heaven? and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a D kind of expiation as wholly respects the future, but of sins that were under the first Testament, not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it, but such as were committed during the time of it, although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them. And to confirm this sense, the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christs entrance into Heaven; but of his dying, v. 16, 17, 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of Holies, yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd, and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance; but that was already E found by the blood of the Sacrifice, and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sácrifice. And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice, and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat: [Page] and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the A Sanctuary, was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him, and was before shed at the Altar. Neither can it with any reason be said, that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ, there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven; since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death; but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God, and there ever lives to make intercession for them.

Crellius answers, That granting the Aorist being put before §. 10. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God. the Ver [...] should imply such an action which was antecedent B to Christs sitting at the right hand of God, yet it is not there said, that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven; for those, saith he, are to be considered as two different things; for a Prince first enters into his Palace, before he sits upon his throne. And therefore, saith he, Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins, before he sate down at the right hand of his Father, not that it was done by his death, but by his Crell. c. 10. sect. 50. p. 537. entrance into Heaven, and offering himself to God there, by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and thereby the full Power of remission of sins, C and giving eternal life. To which I answer, 1. That the Sripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God; which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven, his entrance into Heaven doth imply it: For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it; but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to Matth. 28. 18. him; and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory; D and given him in consideration of his sufferings; as the Apostle plainly asserts; and he became obedient to death, even the death of the Cross, wherefore God hath highly exalted him, &c. Phil. 2. 8, 9. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven, and presenting himself to God there, a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God. 2. Supposing, we should look on these as distinct, there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance, considered as distinct from the other: For the expiation of sins in Heaven E being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christs power, and this being only the means to that power, how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not? But of this I have spoken before, and [Page] shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation A of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God. Thus much may suffice to prove, that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, which do respect the sins committed, do properly agree to the death of Christ.

I now come to that which respects the person, considered as §. 11. Of the Atonement made by Christs death. obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins; and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation. By the wrath of God, I mean, the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature, to punish sin B in those who commit it: by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation, I mean, that in consideration of which, God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lyes under by the Law of God, and to receive him into favour, upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us, I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it. But Crellius would seem to acknowledge, Crell. c. 7. sect. 3. That if Grotius seem to contend for no more, than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved C by their sins, they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for: but then he adds, That this deliverance from the wrath to come, is not by the death, but by the power of Christ. So that the question is, Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us? and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too, that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us, as it was a condition in order to it; for in that sense it had no more influence upon it than his birth had: but we have already seen, that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood D of Christ, in order to the expiation of sin. We do not deny, that the death of Christ may be called a condition, as the performance of any thing in order to an end, may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained; but we say, that it is not a bare condition, but such a one as implies a consideration, upon which the thing is obtained, being such as answers the end of him that grants it: by which means it doth propitiate or atone him, who had before just reason to punish, but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them, who have so highly offended him. And E in this sense we assert, that Christ is said to be [...], a propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2. 2.—4. 10. which we take in the same sense that [...], is taken for the Sin-offering for Atonement. Ezek. 44. 27. [...], they shall [Page]offer a sin-offering; for so [...] there signifies: and in the same A sense [...] is taken, Ezek. 45. 19, and the Ram for Atonement ts call'd [...], Numb. 5. 8. And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement, is said [...], 2 Maccab. 3. 33. which is of the greater consequence to us, because Crellius would not have the sense either of [...] or [...], to be Crell. 7. sect. 10. taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue; but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it; viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament, out of the LXX. and the Apocryphal Greek; in both which we have found the word [...] in a sense fully correspondent to what B we plead for. But he yet urges, and takes a great deal of pains to prove, that [...] and [...] do not alwayes signifie to be appeased by another; but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning; and sometimes to expiate, and then signifies the same with [...] and [...]: which if it be granted, proves nothing against us, having already proved, that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice, and that there is no reason to recede from that signification, when they are applyed to the blood of Christ. And we do not contend, that when the word [...] or [...] is applyed C to him that doth forgive, it doth imply appeasing; but the effect of it, which is pardoning; but that which we assert, is, that when it is applyed to a third person, or a thing made use of in order to forgiveness, then we say it signifies the propitiating him that was justly displeased: so as by what was done or suffered for that end, he is willing to pardon what he had just reason to punish. So Moses is said, to make Atonement for the people by his prayers, [...], Exod. 34. 14. and we may see Verse 11. how much God was displeased before. And Moses besought D the Lord his God, and said, Why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people: and Verse 12. Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people: and then it is said, Verse 14. The Lord was atoned for the evil which he thought to do unto his people. I would therefore willingly know, why Moses might not here properly be said, [...], as it is said, [...], and therefore since it is so very often said in the Levitical Law, [...] and [...], as [...], and the accusative case scarce ever put but in two cases; (viz. When E these words are applyed to inanimate things, as the Altar, &c. or when to God himself, implying forgiveness) what reason can we assign more probable for this different construction, than that when [...] is used, the verb hath a respect to [Page] the offended party as the accusative understood? as Christ is A said in the places mentioned to be [...], which ought in reason to be understood as those words after Moses his intercession, [...]. But Crellius asks, Why then do we never read once concerning the Priest, that he did [...] or [...], but we read that he did [...], and God is said, [...]. To this I answer; 1. That the reason why the person propitiated, is not expressed, is, because it was so much taken for granted, that the whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God, and therefore there was no danger of mistaking, B concerning the person who was to be atoned. 2. I wonder Crellius can himself produce no instance where [...] is used with respect to the Sacrifices, and the persons whose offences are remitted by the Atonement; but where [...] hath a relation to that, it is still joyned with a Preposition relating, either to the person or to the offences; if no more were understood when it is so used, than when God himself is said to do it, why is not the phrase [...], as well said of the Priest, as it is of God? From whence Grotius his sense of Hebr. 2. 17. [...] for C [...], is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament, than that which Crellius would put upon it. Therefore since the [...] is attributed to Christ, we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory Sacrifice: so it is said by Moses, where God is left out, but is necessarily understood, after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry; Ye have sinned a great sin: And now I will go up unto the Lord, [...], That I may make an Atonement for your sin: What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement, D but by propitiating God; yet his name is not there expressed, but necessarily understood. So [...] is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person, Gen 32. 20. and [...], 2 Sam. 21. 3. which places have been already insisted on, in the signification of the word [...]. And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins, are capable of no other sense, will appear from the consideration of Christ, as a middle person betwen God and us; and therefore his being [...], cannot be parallel with that phrase, where God himself is said, E [...], for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us, as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people, in order to the averting his wrath from them. And when one [Page] doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended A party, something is alwayes supposed to be done or suffered by him, as the means of that Atonement. As Iacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him; and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Sauls Sons, both which are said [...]. So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law, was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed. What reason can there be then why so received a sense of Atonement, both among the Iews, and all other Nations at that time when these words were written, must be forsaken; and any other sense be embraced, which B neither agrees with the propriety of the expression, nor with so many other places of Scripture, which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin?

Neither is it only our Atonement, but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too, with a respect to his Death and §. 12. Of Reconciliation by Christs death. Sufferings. As in the place before insisted on: For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; and more largely in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 18. 19, 21. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of C reconciliation: To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And to the Ephesians, And Ephes. 2. 16. that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross, having slain the enmity thereby. To the same purpose to the Colossians, And having made peace through the blood of his Cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself, by him I Col. 1. 20, 21, 22. say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth; and you D that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death. Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places. 1. That Crill. c. 7. sect. 15, 16, 17, 18, &c. it is no where said that God was reconciled to us, but that we are reconciled to God, and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God. 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion, and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implyes only the laying aside our enmity to E God by our sins. I begin with the first of these, concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture, but what the nature of the thing implyes; as to which a difference being supposed between [Page] God and man on the account of sin, no reconciliation A can be imagined but what is mutual. For did man only fall out with God, and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him? If not, what made him so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man? what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge? what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages? what made him add such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Iews? what made the most upright Psal. 6. 1. 38. 1. Psal. 5. 5. 7. 11. 11. 5. Levit. 26. 30. among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure B upon the sense of their sins? what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men, but of the persons of those who commit them; so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them? Nay, what makes our Adversaries themselves to say, that impiety is in its own nature hateful to God, and stirrs him up to anger against all who commit it? what Crell. de Deo & Attrib. l. [...]. c. 30. means, I say, all this, if God be not angry with men on the account of sin? Well then; supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins, shall this displeasure always continue or not; if it always continues, men must certainly suffer the C desert of their sins; if it doth not always continue, then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him. Now there are two ways whereby a party justly offended may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him. First, when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement, but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person, and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it, that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender, that if the D breach continues, the fault wholly lies upon himself. The second is, when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offered, and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked, and is upon that received into favour. And these two we assert must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us. For upon the death and sufferings of Christ, God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffered in order to the reconciliation between himself and us, that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator E hath declared by his own doctrine, and the Apostles he sent to preach it: But because remission of fins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ, without supposition of any act on our part, therefore the state of favour doth [Page] commence from the performance of the conditions which are A required from us. So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christs mediation, and that the obstacle did not lye upon his part; therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreement, do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle, viz. the sins of Mankind, that men by laying aside them, would be now reconciled to God, since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation, their obstinacy in sin excepted. Which may be a very reasonable account why we read more frequently in the writings B of the Apostles, of mens duty in being reconciled to God; the other being supposed by them as the foundation of their preaching to the world, and is insisted on by them upon that account, as is clear in that place to the Corinthians, That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20. unto men their trespasses, and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation; and therefore adds, Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God: And least these words should seem dubious, he declares that the reconciliation C in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to; for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past. v. 18. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ, and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought: For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation, but hopes to escape the force of this Crell. cap. 1. sect. 118. [...] cap. 7. sect. 24. place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation as preached by Christ, and by his Apostles; and so Gods having reconciled D the World to himself by Iesus Christ is nothing else but Christs preaching the Gospel himself, who afterwards committed that Office to his Apostles. But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings, both they were made, and the Scripture were written to very little purpose; for if this had been all the Apostle had meant, that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them, what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World, that Christs Apostles preached no other Doctrine, but what their Master had preached before? especially if no more were meant by it, E but that men should leave their sins, and be reconciled to God. But besides, why is the Ministery of Reconciliation, then attributed only to the Apostles, and not to Christ, which ought in the first place to have been given to him, since the Apostles [Page] did only receive it from him? Why is that Ministery of Reconciliation A said to be, viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself? was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching, to tell the World, that Christ perswaded men to leave off their sins? how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ, since Christ himself saith, he was not sent to preach to the world; but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ before they had ever heard of him? Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ, rather than his Apostles; if the not imputing B were no more than declaring Gods readiness to pardon; which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ himself? Lastly, what force or dependance is there in the last words, For he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, &c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christs preaching? How was he made sin more than the Apostles, if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him? and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles, as well as in Christ, if no more be meant, but C being perswaded to be righteous, by the Doctrine delivered to them?

In the two latter places, Eph. 2. 16. Coloss. 1. 20. &c. it is plain, that a twofold reconcilation is likewise mentioned, the one of the Iews and Gentiles to one another, the other of both of them to God. For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus, who would have [...] not to be joyned with the Verb, [...], but to stand by it self, and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Iews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God. And Crellius, who stands out D at nothing, hopes to bring off Socinus here too; by saying, Crell. cap. 7. sect. 30. that it is very common, for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb; but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions; the shorter answer had been to have produced one place where [...] ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party; or whereever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation, did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconciliation was to be made. As for that objection concerning E things in Heaven being reconciled; that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Men, but that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of men to God, become one body under Christ, and are gathered [Page] together in him, as the Apostle expresseth it, Eph. 1. 10. A

Having thus far proved, that the effects of an Expiatory §. 12. Obj [...]ctions answered. Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ, nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections, which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries. The first is, That God was reconciled before he sent his Son, and therefore Christ could not dye to reconcile God to us. The second is, That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us, is inconsistent with the freeness of Gods grace in the remission of sins: Both which [...] admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse. To the first I answer, That we assert nothing inconsistent B with that love of God, which was discovered in sending his Son into the world; we do not say, That God hated mankind so much on the account of sin, that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them, which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of Gods love, in sending Christ into the world; but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love, that notwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven, he should be pleased to send his own Son to dye for sinners, that they might be reconciled C to him. And herein was the great love of God manifested, that while we were enemies and sin [...]ers, Christ dyed for us, and that for this end, that we might be reconciled to God by his death. And therefore surely, not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then. But it were worth the while, to understand what it is our Adversaries mean, when they say, God was reconciled when he sent his Son, and therefore he could not dye to reconcile God to us. Either they mean, that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his son, or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him: if he D only decreed to be reconciled, that was not at all inconsistent with Christs dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree: if they mean, he was actually reconciled, then there was no need for Christ to dye to reconcile God and us; but withal, actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin; and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came, there could be no need of his coming at all, and sins would have been pardoned before committed; if they were not pardoned, notwithstanding that love of God, then it can imply no more, but that God was willing to be reconciled. If therefore the E not remission of sins were consistent with that love of God, by which he sent Christ into the world, then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death. So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God, [Page] with not presently pardoning the sins of the world, as we are A to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ, which are asserted by us.

To the other Objection, Concerning the inconsistency of the §. 13. The freeness of Grace asserted in Scripture, destroys not satisfaction. Freeness of Gods Grace, with the Doctrine of Satisfaction. I answer, Either Gods Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions, or not: If it be so free, as to exclude all conditions, then the highest Antinomianism is the truest Doctrine; for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace, which admits of no conditions at all. If our Adversaries say, That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with conditions required on our part, Why B shall it not admit of conditions on Gods part? especially, when the condition required, tends so highly to the end of Gods governing the world, in the manifestation of his hatred against sin, and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead, as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins. There are two things to be considered in sin, the dishonor done to God, by the breach of his Laws, and the injury men do to themselves by it; now remission of sins, that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it; and that is Free, when the penalty is wholly forgiven, C as we assert it is by the Gospel to all penitent sinners: but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honor, and to declare his righteousness to the world, while he is the Iustifier of them that believe? Shall men in case of Defamation, be bound to vindicate themselves, though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander, by our Adversaries own Doctrine? and must it be repugnant to Gods Grace, to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, that the world may understand, that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God; but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ, D in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them? But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ, for God freely to pardon sin, than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Jews or Gentiles? who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement; and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins? Nay, we find that God himself, in the case of Abimel [...]ch, appointed Abraham to pray Gen. 20. 7. for him, in order to his pardon; And will any one say, this E was a derogation to the grace of God in his pardon? Or to the pardon of Iobs Friends, because Iob was appointed to Sacrifice f [...]r them? Or to the pardon of the Israelites, because God out Job 42. 7. of kindness to them, directed them by the Prophets, and appointed [Page] the means in order to it? But although God appointed A our High-Priest for us, and out of his great love sent him into the world, yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him, but what he freely underwent himself; he gave us Christ, but Christ offered up himself a full, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world.

Thus, Sir, I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of, concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ; and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things, and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written, B

I am, SIR, Your, &c. E. S. C D E

Ian. 6. 166 [...].

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Sermons preached on several occasions to which a discourse is annexed concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ : wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered / by Edward Stillingfleet ...Sermons. Selections

Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.

Edition statement

1673

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A61626

ID [STC]

Wing S5666

ID [STC]

ESTC R14142

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13142349

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13142349

ID [VID]

97974

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61626)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 97974)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 752:10)

Source

— Sermons preached on several occasions to which a discourse is annexed concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ : wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered / by Edward Stillingfleet ..., Sermons. Selections, Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699..

Extent

[18], 238, [2], 239-384 p.

Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock ...,. London :: 1673.. (Marginal notes.) (Special t.p. on p. [1] following p. 238: A discourse concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ ... The second edition.) (Reproduction of original in Duke University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.