for the benefit and advantage of finners, but not his dying in their ftead? This, let the words which immediately follow determine: y 7. 8. For fcarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man fome would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet finners, Chrift died for us. And now I appeal to any man of good fenfe, whether it be not plain, that the Apostle here fpeaks of Chrift's dying for finners in the fame fenfe as one nan is faid to die for another; that is, to fave another from death; which, what is it elfe but to die in his ftead? He that can deny this, is perverfe to the highest degree, and I fear almoft beyond the poffibility of being convinced.

And the argument from these two texts is fo much the ftronger, because we do not here reafon merely from the phrafe and expreffion, but from the main fcope of our Saviour's difcourfe in the one, and of St. Paul's in the other for the defign of both is, to recommend the fuperlative love of Chrift to us above the greatest love that ever any man expreffed to another. The highest pitch that human affection did ever rife to, was for a man to lay down his life for his friend; but the Son of God laid down his life for his enemies. Scarcely (fays St. Paul) would one lay down his life for a righteous man; that is, for one who is but ftrictly just and honest, and does no body wrong; but for a good man, that is, for one that is kind and beneficial to all, and hath obliged mankind by great benefits, fome one may be found that would lay down his life to fave the life of fuch a perfon: but the love of Chrift hath gone far beyond this; he died for finners, for thofe who were neither good men nor righteous: But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet finners, Chrift died for us. Now, where doth the force of this argument lie, if not in this, that Christ hath done that for us, who were enemies and finners, which fome very few perfons in the world have done for their friend, or for fome very eminently good man? And what is that? why they have laid down their lives in their ftead. And fo Chrift hath done for us. This feems to be fo very plain, that I do not fee how the force of this argument is poffible to be avoided.

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

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

Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this was likewife fignified by the finner's laying his hand upon the facrifice that was to be flain, thereby, as it were, transferring the punishment which was due to himfelf upon the facrifice that was to be flain and offered

up.

For fo God tells Mofes, that the finner, who came to offer an expiatory facrifice, fhould do, Lev. i. 4. He fhall put his hand upon the head of the burni-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him. And the Apostle tells us, that it was an established principle in the Jewifh religion, that without shedding of blood there was no remiffion of fins. Which plainly fhews, that they expected this benefit of the remiffion of fins from the b ood of their facrifices.

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

For