which he suffered from them, then did not the salvation of the world depend upon his being actually crucified, or upon his crucifying by men, but only upon that crucifying, wherewith he had crucified himself before men came to lay hands upon him. Sed verum prius: ergo et posterius. That the merit of Christ was no ways perfected or augmented by the things which he suffered from men is evident, because he acted or did nothing herein, or under these sufferings, more than what he had done before in the inward transactions of his soul; yea, and would have done still, or again, whether men had crucified him or no. 3. If the acceptation of the sacrifice of Christ depended only upon, 1. The nature, quality, and legitimateness of the sacrifice. 2. Upon the legitimacy and dignity of the priest offering. 3, and lastly. Upon the legitimateness of the manner observed in the offering, then was not the act of those who crucified Christ any ways contributing towards the acceptation of this sacrifice; and if so, the acceptation hereof with God had been the same, and consequently the salvation of the world, purchased and procured by it, whether men had interposed to crucify Christ or no. Evident it is, that they who crucified Christ neither gave legitimateness to the sacrifice; nor were any legitimate priests, upon whose actings about the sacrifice the acceptation of the offering any ways depended; nor, 3. Did they in what they did about the crucifying of Christ, observe any legitimateness of order or manner which should render the oblation acceptable with God. Therefore the acceptance of that great sacrifice we spake of with God, depended wholly upon Christ himself; who, 1. In respect of his person, was a legitimate sacrifice to make that great atonement for the world that was made by him. 2. In respect of his office, was a legitimate high priest, anointed by God to offer that great sacrifice of himself. 3, and lastly. By virtue of his holiness, love, zeal, and all other heavenly endowments requisite for his office of priesthood, performed the oblation with a perfect observation of all the requirements appertaining to the law or manner of such an offering. In none of all these had he the least dependence upon those who put him to death; nor stood he in need of their wickedness in crucifying him, to make him either sacrifice, priest, or oblation of highest acceptance with God. 4. The apostle expressly affirmeth concerning men, that "if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted" (meaning with God) "according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not," 2 Cor. viii. 12. His meaning clearly is, that where there is a clear, perfect, and upright desire of soul in any man to perform any service pleasing unto God, but wants opportunity or means for the actual or complete performance of it, and shall go in or towards the performance as far as he hath opportunity or means to carry him, such a man finds the same acceptance with God under these deficiencies which he should find under an actual and complete performance. This is that which divines commonly express in saying, There that God accepts the will for the deed. Now there is no reason to conceive or think but that God should deal in a way of as much equity and grace with Christ as he doth with other men. fore supposing that there was a clear, perfect, and entire willingness or readiness of mind in Christ to lay down his life for the world, but he had wanted an opportunity actually to have done it, (as suppose no man should have appeared to take away his life from him,) there is no sufficient reason to think but that he had been accepted with God upon the same terms under, or in respect of such his willingness or desire, on which he is now accepted under his actual death. 5, and lastly, If it was the deep humility and perfect subjection to the Father's will and pleasure, together with those other inward and gracious deportments of soul in Christ, in and under his sufferings, which gave the whole and entire worth of merit and satisfaction unto them, then were his bare external sufferings considered apart from these no ways meritorious; and consequently of no absolute necessity for, or towards the redemption of the world. Sed verum prius: ergo et posterius. The former consequence in this argument is evident, because nothing, whether action or passion, can be meritorious without something in it or relating to it, which should give it the weight or worth of merit. The latter consequence is no less evident neither. For whatever, whether doings or sufferings, are wholly void of merit, though they may some ways contribute towards the work of redemption, yet can they be no ways essential or of absolute necessity thereunto. For the minor; neither is this much questionable; the Scriptures themselves from place to place, placing the value, merit, or expiatory worth of the death and sufferings of Christ, over and besides the dignity of his person, in his innocency, meekness, humility, perfect subjection to his Father's will, &c. Let these passages be considered. Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. vii. 26-28, with many others of like import. Now certain it is, 1. That the excellency and dignity of the person of Christ was and would have been the same. 2. That the innocency, humility, love, patience, obedience of Christ were, and would have been the same also, whether he had actually and corporally suffered or no. Therefore whatsoever was properly, formally, or essentially meritorious in Christ, was in him before his sufferings of a natural death, and would have been in him whether he had suffered such a death or no; and consequently the work of redemption might have prospered in his hand, whether he had thus suffered or not. If it be demanded; but doth not this doctrine suppose or make Christ to have died in vain ? yea, and contradict all those scriptures which ascribe the redemption and salvation of men to his blood, death, cross, and suffering? I answer, neither; it is most free from both these erroneous impieties. From the former, because the death of Christ is sovereignly necessary upon several other accounts; as firstly, If he should not have actually yielded up himself unto death, there being found those that would, and did, attempt it, it must needs have been conceived and concluded by men, that he was not truly, inwardly, and really willing and free to have laid down his life for the world; and consequently there had been no ground or footing for any man to believe either that he was the Son of God, or that he was meritoriously qualified for the redemption of the world. Secondly, Had he always declined actual dying, under those frequent attempts made by men to take away his life, it could not have been known (and so not upon any sufficient ground believed) that God the Father delivered him up to death; and consequently his will and good pleasure concerning the salvation of the world by his Son could not upon any competent terms have been believed. Thirdly, The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the actual sufferings of Christ could not have been fulfilled. Fourthly, Upon the said supposition as, viz., that he had an opportunity through the blood-thirsty malice of men to lay down his life actually, if he should not have done it, that great example of his humility, patience, self-denial, love of the brethren even unto blood, &c. had been wanting in the churches. Fifthly, and lastly, Upon the supposition mentioned, the actual dying of Christ was altogether necessary in respect of the inward frame and disposition of his soul, which rendered him freely willing to lay down his life, in case it should be required of him, at or after such a time as his Father judged it meet to permit the execution. Now such a frame and disposition of heart and soul as this, was, as was formerly argued, absolutely necessary to be found in Christ, to qualify him for a Redeemer: and being found in him, it could not possibly but produce his actual death, when men should attempt it, and God no ways interpose to prevent it. Thus then you see clearly how the doctrine which denieth an absolute necessity of Christ's actual and external death, in order to the salvation of the world, no ways rendereth or supposeth this death of his to be in vain. Nor doth the doctrine we now speak of contradict any of those scriptures which attribute the redemption and salvation of the world to his blood, death, sufferings, &c. For when we are said to be healed by his stripes, 1 Pet. ii. 24; to be "justified by his blood," Rom. v. 9; to "have redemption through his blood," Eph. i. 7, &c., it no ways supposeth or implies, that the literal or material shedding of his blood by men, was simply and absolutely necessary, either to the justification, or redemption of men, but only that a shedding of it, by himself, spiritually, in that great act of resignation of it to be shed by men, which passed, and was transacted inwardly in his soul, whether it had been externally shed by men, or no, was simply and absolutely necessary thereunto. There is scarce any phrase or idiom of speech more frequent in Scripture, than to mention and speak of an act simply, and indefinitely, as performed and done, when the doing of it hath been fully resolved, concluded, or consented unto in the heart and soul, whether ever it be actually and externally done, or no. Thus, Abraham, in the same verse, is twice said to have offered up his son Isaac, Heb. xi. 17, only because he was inwardly, really, and fully willing to have offered him up literally, which yet we know he did not. So a man is said to "forsake all he hath," Luke xiv. 33, when he is inwardly and unfeignedly willing and resolved to forsake all, literally and actually, when he shall be called to it, whether he be ever so called or no. In this phrase of speech, God is said to have given the land of Canaan unto the Israelites, Josh. i. 3, when as he had only purposed, or resolved to give it unto them, as appears verse 6. So to have saved us, 2 Tim. i. 9, only because of his full purpose to save us, upon our believing. So again, to have rejected Saul from being king, 1 Sam, xv. 23, only because he was fully purposed to reject him, upon his impenitence in his rebellious course; for evident it is, that Saul was permitted to enjoy his kingdom a considerable space of time after it was said that God had rejected him from being king. In like manner he is said, chap. xiii. 13, to have established, (for so Arias Montanus translates out of the original, viz, "stabilierat," and our former English translators, "had established,") the kingdom of Saul upon Israel for ever, only because he was purposed to do it, and that conditionally too, viz. upon the good behaviour of himself and his posterity in the throne. It were easy to multiply instances in this kind, even unto weariness. In like construction of speech, Christ may be said to have given his flesh, laid down his life, shed his blood, for the redemption of the world, justification of men, &c., and consequently, the world be said to be redeemed, and men justified by his blood, death, cross, &c., only because he was freely willing, unfeignedly ready and prepared to do all these actually, when the providence of God, and the wickedness of men should afford him an opportunity to do them. Nor can it be said, that, in such a sense, he should ever the less have given his flesh, laid down his life, shed his blood for the salvation of the world, than now he hath done, in case the providence of God, and wickedness of men, should never have conspired or agreed about the taking away his life from him. It was his blood, as shed by himself, not by men; it was his life, as laid down by himself, not as taken from him by men; it was his flesh, as given or offered by himself, not as sacrificed by wicked men, which produced those glorious and blessed effects, the redemption, justification, and salvation of the world. Now Christ, to shed his blood, in such a sense as he shed it; to lay down his life, in such a manner, as he by any act or consent of his, concurred and acted towards the laying of it down; and so to give his flesh, as he gave it, needed not the malice, violence, or bloody injustice of men, but did all this, performed all these acts within his own sphere, yea, and had performed them, before the least drop of his blood was spilt by men; and consequently the redemption and salvation of the world were provided for by him in all things essential, and simply necessary thereunto, before either Herod or Pilate, the Gentiles or the Jews interposed with any of their counsels or engagements for the crucifying of him. F Thus, then, we see what the Christians mean, in, saying that 'Herod, and Pilate,' with the Gentiles and people of Israel, gathered together to do whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had determined before to be done;" viz. to act towards, in and about the death and crucifying of Christ to the uttermost (öra, quæcunque) of what God had before upon a special account and design, determined, or decreed to permit them to do, or rather, to permit to be done, notwithstanding his hand or power to have prevented them. For, to touch the second thing propounded, the word yevéolai, translated, to be done, doth not import any eventual certainty, or indispensable necessity of the coming to pass of those things, which Herod, Pilate, &c. gathered themselves together to do, and accordingly did, about the crucifying of Christ; but only the possibility, or, if we will, the probability of their coming to pass upon the determined permission of God in that behalf. For that the permissive decree of God, doth not import the certainty or necessity of event in things so decreed, is afterwards proved in this chapter. It is a form of speech frequent in the Scriptures, to speak of things probable, or likely to come to pass, as if they should or would simply and certainly come to pass; and so again to use the infinitive mood in a potential sense, or signification. An instance of the former we have, Deut. xiii. 11, "And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.' The meaning is not, that it shall certainly and infallibly thus come to pass, viz. that no Israelite, hearing of the judgment executed upon the idolatrous seducer, would ever commit the like wickedness afterwards, but that the hearing of such a severe course taken with such an offender, should be a probable and likely means to preserve others from the like wickedness. Another passage of like expression and import, you have, Deut. xvii. 13, and again, Deut. xix. 20; see also Gen. xxi. 6; Num. xiv. 13, 14; John xi. 48, to omit other the like without number. An instance of the latter we have, Rom. i. 20, Eis rò elvai avròç ávañoλoyýτeç, i. e. That they might be, or that they may be, as our last translators render it in their margin, or, that they should be, as our former translators had it, without excuse, viz. in case they glorify not God as God.* See also Rom. iv. 11, where the infinitive mood is twice used in such a potential sense as we speak of. So when Christ saith unto Simon and Andrew, Mark i. 17, "Follow me,” rai woιýow vμãç yevéolai àλeïç ávṣρúπшv, " and I will make” or cause 66 you to be" or, to become "fishers of men," his meaning is not, that upon condition they would follow him, he would compel, or force them to be "fishers of men," he might have done this as well without persuading them to follow him, but that he would furnish them with such wisdom and knowledge, with such a heavenly art and skill, that if their hearts would serve them for the employment, they might, and should, be excellently accomplished and fitted by him, for the drawing of men out of the world unto God. See also Mark x. 44; Luke viii. 35; xxiii. 24. * See Franciscus Vigerus, De præcipuis Græcæ dictionis idiotismis, p. 99. |