QUEST. XLIV. _How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest?_

ANSW. Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering

himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, to be a reconciliation

for the sins of his people, and in making continual intercession for

them.

In considering Christ’s Priestly office, as described in this answer, we

may observe the two great branches thereof, namely, the offering himself

a sacrifice; and making intercession. There are several scriptures which

expressly mention both of them: thus he is said, _through the eternal

Spirit, to have offered himself without spot, to God_, Heb. ix. 14. and

then described as having _entered into heaven, now to appear in the

presence of God for us_, ver. 24. and elsewhere the apostle speaks of

him, as _having an unchangeable priesthood, and being able to save them

to the uttermost that come unto God by him_, and that this is founded on

his offering up himself, and making intercession for them, chap. vii.

24, 25, 27. In considering this, we may observe,

I. The reason of his being styled a Priest, which denomination was taken

from those who exercised the priestly office under the ceremonial law,

who were types of him, as such: accordingly we may consider; that the

office of the priesthood was executed by sundry persons, appointed to

this service. A priest was a public minister, who was to serve at the

altar, _to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins_, Heb. v. 1. That

these were offered in all the ages of the church, after the fall of man,

appears, from the sacrifice that Abel offered, which the apostle calls

an _excellent one_, and, upon this occasion, says, that _he obtained

witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts_, Heb. xi. 4.

and therefore it follows, that it was instituted by him: yet it does not

appear that there was, in that early age of the church, a set of men

solemnly and publickly invested in this office: but the heads of

families are generally supposed to have been the public ministers in

holy things, and particularly priests, though they do not appear to have

been then so styled; and thus it continued till about the time that God

brought Israel out of Egypt, when, by his appointment, all the

first-born of the children of Israel were consecrated to him; and these

officiated as priests, during that small interval of time, till the

priesthood was settled in the tribe of Levi, upon which occasion God

says, _I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel,

instead of all the first-born, because all the first-born are mine; for

on the day that I smote all the first-born, in the land of Egypt, I

hallowed unto me all the first-born in Israel_, Numb. iii. 12, 13. And,

when God gave the ceremonial law from mount Sinai, he appointed that

tribe to minister as priests in holy things. Of these some had one part

of the ministry of the sanctuary committed to them, and others another;

particularly the priesthood, or the charge of offering gifts and

sacrifices, was more, especially committed to the family of Aaron, of

which the eldest son, in their respective generations, was generally

advanced to the high priesthood, and other descendants from him were

common priests, who acted under, or were assistants to him in all the

parts of his ministry, excepting that which respected his entering into

the holy of holies. These were invested in their respective offices by

unction, though the high priest’s office and unction had some things

peculiar in it, in which it exceeded theirs; and they were all types of

Christ’s priesthood, though the high priest was so in an eminent degree;

which leads us to consider,

II. The Priesthood of Christ, as typified under the ceremonial law, and

that either by the service which was commonly performed by the high

priest, and other priests under him, or as it was typified by

Melchizedec, who is occasionally mentioned in scripture, as shadowing

forth Christ’s Priesthood in some particular instances, which were not

contained in other types thereof.

1. We shall speak concerning the priests under the law, as types of

Christ’s Priesthood, and particularly shew wherein their priesthood

agrees with, or differs from his.

(1.) Wherein they agree.

_1st, Every high priest was taken from among men_, as the apostle

observes, Heb. v. 1. _and was ordained for men in things pertaining to

God_. And, to this we may add, that he was taken from among his

brethren, and so must be a member of that church, in whose name he

administered, and of which he was the head, by the dignity of his

office. In this, he was a lively type of Christ, who, in order to his

being an High Priest, became man, that he might perform this ministry

for men in things pertaining to God. It is true, the validity of his

office, or the efficacy thereof to answer its designed end, arose from

the dignity of his Person, as God; yet the matter thereof, or the

ministry he performed, required that he should be taken from among men,

and have all the essential properties of the human nature; so that, as

the high priest was taken out of the church, or from among his brethren,

and, by office, was the head thereof, Christ was a member of the church,

and, as such, complied with those ordinances which God had instituted

therein, and from the dignity of his Person and office, was the Head

thereof: as a Member of it, he was exposed to the same temptations and

miseries as they are, and so is able to sympathize with, and succour

them under all their temptations, Heb. iv. 15. compared with chap. v. 2.

and as the Head thereof, he manages all affairs relating to it, and

expects that all his people should be entirely subjected to him.

_2dly_, The matter of the priest’s office, or the things that were

offered by him, were, as was before observed, gifts and sacrifices

offered for the remission of sins; which blessing could not be attained

without shedding of blood, as the apostle observes, _without shedding of

blood there is no remission_, chap. ix. 22. Thus Christ was to redeem

his people, and procure forgiveness of sins, and make atonement for them

by sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood.

_3dly_, After the high priest had offered sacrifices, there was another

part of that ministry, which was peculiar to himself, in which he was an

eminent type of Christ, which he performed but once a year, to wit, on

the great day of expiation, when he went into the holiest of all within

the vail, with blood and incense; the blood he sprinkled on the

mercy-seat over the ark, and caused the smoke of the incense to ascend

and cover the mercy-seat, and from thence he received an intimation from

God, that the sacrifices, which he had offered for the people, were

accepted, after which he went out, and blessed them, in the name of the

Lord; in all which, he was a lively type of Christ’s executing his

Priestly office, chap. ix. 3, 7. compared with Lev. xvi. 14. who first

offered an acceptable sacrifice for us on earth, and then entered into

heaven, (which was typified by the priest’s entering into the holy of

holies) to present his sacrifice before God, and to make intercession

for us; and, as the consequence hereof, he blesses his people, in

turning them from all their iniquities, and in conferring all the other

fruits and effects of his sacrifice upon them. Thus Christ’s Priesthood

was shadowed forth by that ministry, which was performed by the priests

under the ceremonial law; nevertheless,

(2.) There were many things in which they differed; as,

_1st_, The priests under the law were mere men; but Christ, though truly

man, was more than a man. Though he was made, in all the essential

properties of the human nature, like unto us; yet he had a divine

nature, in which he was equal with God; and therefore his ministry could

not but be infinitely more valuable, than that of any others, who were

types of him.

_2dly_, The priests under the law were of the tribe of Levi, and

therefore theirs is called, by the apostle, _The Levitical priesthood_,

Heb. vii. 11. But our Saviour, as Man, was of the tribe of Judah, and

therefore did not derive his priesthood from them by descent, as they

did from one another, chap. vii. 13, 14.

_3dly_, The sacrifices which were offered by the priests under the law,

were no other than the blood of beasts, appointed for that purpose; but

Christ offered his own blood, chap. ix. 12,14.

_4thly_, The priests under the law were sinners; accordingly Aaron was

obliged _first_ to offer up _sacrifice for his own sins, and then for

the peoples’_, chap. vii. 27. but Christ needed not to do this, for _he

was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners_, ver. 26.

_5thly_, The sacrifices offered by the priests under the law, could not

expiate, or _take away sins_, chap. x. 4. but Christ, by the offering

that he has made, has _for ever perfected them that are sanctified_, or

made a full atonement for all sin. Now since it is said, that it was

impossible for sin to be expiated by the sacrifices under the law, we

are to enquire in what sense atonement was, or could not be made

thereby: if the sin was of such a nature, or that it was punishable by

human judicature, the making atonement by sacrifice, in many instances,

put a stop to the prosecution, and took away the guilt, which the person

had contracted, as to any farther proceedings of men against him; for

this was an ordinance appointed by God, in which the offender had an

external and visible recourse to the blood of Jesus, signified by the

blood which he offered; and this is supposed to have been accompanied

with repentance for the sin committed, which gave satisfaction to the

church, as to what concerned this matter, as offensive to them; and they

could demand no more of the offender, in order to their declaring, that,

so far as they were judges, his guilt was expiated, by that which was

signified by the sacrifice which he brought, which was offered for him,

and therefore the crime that he committed was pardoned.

It is true, there were some crimes that were to be punished with death;

and, in this case, the church was not to receive satisfaction by

sacrifice, nor were proceedings against the guilty person to be stopped

by this means: and, among other crimes, that of wilful murder was one

which admitted of no sacrifice; so, I think, the meaning of what the

Psalmist says, is to be understood, _Thou desirest not sacrifice, else

would I give it_, Psal. li. 16. as implying, that the guilt of blood was

such, that he had hereby forfeited his life, which, though no subject

had power enough to take away, yet God might, for this, have set his

face against him, and have cut him off, in a visible manner, from among

his people, as he often did, when crimes were not punished in a legal

way. This punishment God graciously remitted, when he told him, by

Nathan, that _he had put away his sin, he should not die_, 2 Sam. xii.

13. and David, when he testifies his repentance, in this Psalm, would

have offered sacrifice, but he finds that none was ordained for the sin

he had committed. In other cases, indeed, the church was satisfied,

excommunication, or some other punishment, prevented, and the offender

taken into favour, by his offering sacrifice, in which respect, this

service is called making atonement for him: but, in other respects, it

was impossible to expiate sin thereby, so as to procure justification in

the sight of God; for they could not expiate it, as to what concerns the

conscience, as it is said, that _the sacrifices could not make him, that

did the service, perfect, as pertaining to the conscience_, Heb. ix. 9.

so that, that guilt of sin, which burdens the consciences of men, as

having more immediately to do with God, was taken away only by Christ’s

sacrifice; in which respect, the efficacy hereof far exceeds all the

ends and designs of the sacrifices, which were offered under the law.

And this farther appears, inasmuch as these sacrifices were to be

repeated, there being a continual remembrance of sin; for this supposes,

that sin was not hereby wholly expiated in the sight of God: and, in

this, they also differ from the sacrifice Christ offered, inasmuch as

that, being effectual to take away sin, was offered but once, chap. x.

10, 14.

_6thly_, The priests under the law were mortal, and therefore the

priesthood was successive; but Christ, as he was not from them by a

lineal descent so he had no successor in his priesthood. In this, the

apostle opposes him to them, when he says, _They truly were many,

because they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death; but this

man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood_, chap.

vii. 23.

Again, as the priesthood ceased, in particular persons, by death, so the

high priesthood was sometimes taken away from those that were advanced

unto it, for some instances of maladministration: thus the high

priesthood, for some time, descended in the line of Eleazar, the elder

branch of Aaron’s family; and afterwards, during the reign of the

judges, it was transferred to the younger branch of his family, namely,

the descendants from Ithamar, in which line it was when Eli was high

priest; and afterwards, when his sons, by their vile behaviour,

forfeited their right to the high priesthood, and God threatened that he

would take it away from his family, 1 Sam. ii. 30. compared with ver.

35. and 1 Kings ii. 35. (which was accomplished when Abiathar, in the

beginning of Solomon’s reign, was thrust from the priesthood) it again

descended in Zadock, to the elder branch of Aaron’s family.

Again the priesthood itself was not designed to continue for ever, but

only during that dispensation; after which, there was to be no altar,

priests, nor sacrifice: But Christ’s priesthood, as it was unalienable,

so it could never be forfeited by male-administration, or descend to any

other; therefore he is said to be a _Priest for ever_, which seems to be

the meaning of that scripture, in which his priesthood is considered, as

different from the Levitical priesthood, as _those priests were made

without an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him, The

Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever_, chap. vii.

21. which oath not only signifies the establishing of him in his

priesthood, but it secured to him that he should never fall from it.

There are other things in which Christ’s priesthood differs from that of

the priests under the law, in that _they entered into the holy places

made with hands, but Christ into heaven it self_, chap. ix. 7. compared

with ver. 24. and then it was only the high priest that was to enter

into the holy of holies: But, as the apostle observes, that under the

gospel, in the virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, all believer’s are admitted

into the holiest of all, that is, they have access through faith, into

the presence of God, by the blood of Jesus.

And lastly, under the law, there was a certain order of men that were

priests, and yet all the people were not so; but, under the

gospel-dispensation, believers are styled, an _holy_ and _a royal

priesthood_, and _the sacrifices they offer up, are spiritual

sacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ_, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. And

this leads us,

2. To consider Christ’s priesthood, as typified by Melchizedek,

concerning whom it is said, in Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20. that Melchizedek,

_king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine to Abraham, returning from

the slaughter of the kings; and he was priest of the most high God, and

he blessed him_, &c. And this is referred to, as tending to set forth

Christ’s priesthood, in Psal. cx. 4. _The Lord hath sworn and will not

repent; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek_; and

the apostle, in Heb. vii. refers to these scriptures, which are the only

places of the Old Testament where this is mentioned, and applies them to

Christ’s priesthood as containing many things which were not typified by

the Aaronical priesthood. And it may be observed, that when the apostle

enters on this subject, he premises this concerning it, that it

contained a very great difficulty, as he says, _Of whom_ [i. e.

_Melchizedek_] _we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered_,

Heb. v. 11. that is, hard to be explained, so as to be fully understood;

it will be no strange thing therefore if we cannot fully explain it, or

assert some things concerning it, which are only probable; and certainly

this observation of the apostle should induce us to treat on this

subject with the greatest humility and modesty. As to what we have to

say concerning it, I hope we shall advance nothing contrary to the

analogy of faith, how difficult soever some phrases, used in scripture,

relating thereunto, may seem to be: And the method in which we shall

proceed, shall be; _first_, to enquire who this Melchizedek was; and,

_secondly_, how we have herein an eminent type of Christ’s priesthood in

some things, in which it was not shadowed forth by the Aaronical

priesthood.

We shall now enquire who this Melchizedek probably was; and here we pass

by the conjecture of some who lived in an early age of Christianity,

whom Epiphanius mentions[143], who supposed that he was the Holy Ghost;

which appears to be a very absurd notion, inasmuch as we never read in

scripture, of the Holy Ghost’s appearing in the form of a man, nor of

his performing any of those offices which belong to the Mediator; and

therefore it is equally contrary, to the tenor of scripture, to call him

the priest of the most high God, as it is to call the Father so; and

thus Melchizedek is styled, in the scripture we are explaining. I shall

add no more, as to this ungrounded opinion; but proceed to consider that

which is more commonly acquiesced in, namely,

_First_, That he was a man: But when it is farther enquired, what man?

there are three different opinions relating hereunto.

(1.) The Jews generally conclude that he was Shem, the son of Noah, as

also do many other ancient and modern writers, who pay a deference to

their authority and reasoning[144]. The principal thing that induces

them to be of this opinion, is, because it appears, from

scripture-chronology, that Shem was living at that time, when Abraham

returned from the slaughter of the kings[145]. And they farther add,

that Shem, having received the patriarchal benediction from his father,

might truly be reckoned the greatest man in the church, and that both as

a priest and a king, as Melchizedek is described to be. But there are

two very considerable objections against this opinion, which have weight

enough in them, if not to overthrow it, at least to make it very

doubtful: namely,

_1st_, That Shem’s father, mother, and descent, together with the

beginning of his life, and afterwards the end thereof, were well known,

the year when he was born, and the time that he lived, being

particularly mentioned in scripture; and therefore the apostle could not

say concerning him, as he does concerning Melchizedek, that _he was

without father, without mother, without descent having neither beginning

of days, nor end of life_; meaning, as most expositors suppose, that he

was so, because these were not known, or mentioned in scripture.

_2dly_, It is very plain from scripture, that Shem’s place of abode was

not in the land of Canaan, and therefore he could not be said to be king

of Salem, that is as it is understood by the greatest number of

expositors, of Jerusalem; since this was the seat of the posterity of

Ham, one of Shem’s brethren; accordingly from Canaan, his son, that land

took its name. This evidently appears from what is said in Gen. x. 6-20.

where the Jebusite, Emorite, Hivite, and other inhabitants of the land

of Canaan, are said to be the descendants of Ham. For these reasons,

Melchizedek does not appear to have been Shem.

(2.) There is one learned writer, who conjectures that this Melchizedek

was Ham[146], which, indeed, agrees very well with the place of his

residence: But there are other things which render this opinion not in

the least probable; not only because the same thing may be observed of

Ham, as was before of Shem, that he could not be said to be without

father, without mother, without beginning of years, and end of life: But

it may farther be said concerning him, that he had not received the

patriarchal benediction from Noah, his posterity having had a curse

entailed upon them, as it is said, in Gen. ix. 25. _Cursed be Canaan_.

Therefore some question, whether Ham might be reckoned a member of the

church,[147] much more whether he deserved to be called a priest of the

most high God, and king of righteousness; though it is true, this

author[148] supposes, that Ham was not cursed by Noah, but only Canaan

his son, and his posterity; therefore he might have been an excellent

person, and deserved the character given of Melchizedek. But there are

very few who will be convinced by this method of reasoning; and

therefore we pass it over, and proceed to consider,

(3.) That the greatest part of divines suppose, that it is not only the

safest, but most probable way of solving this difficulty, to confess,

that it is impossible to determine who he was, and that the Holy Ghost

has purposely concealed this matter, from us, that he might be a more

eminent type of Christ; and therefore they suppose him to have been a

certain unknown king and priest residing at Jerusalem, at that time when

Abraham was met by him, and that this ought to put a full stop to all

farther enquiries about him: upon which account, it may well be said,

concerning him, that he was without father, without mother, _&c._ that

is, these were not known; and what does not appear to be, is sometimes

said, in scripture, not to be. Thus concerning their opinion, who

suppose that he was a man.

_Secondly_, There is another opinion concerning him, which though not so

commonly received as the first and third above mentioned, which though

probably it may not be without some difficulties attending it, yet it

very much deserves our consideration, namely, that Melchizedek was our

Lord Jesus Christ himself, assuming, at that time, the form of a man,

and personating a priest and a king, as he did on several occasions,

designing thereby to prefigure his future incarnation[149][150] And it

is argued in defence of this opinion,

_1st_, That when the apostle describes him as king of Salem, he does not

hereby intend Jerusalem, or that at that time, he resided there: But, as

he explains it, in the words immediately following, it implies, that he

was _king of peace_, as this word Salem signifies; and accordingly he is

set forth by two of those glorious titles, which are given him elsewhere

in scripture, namely, king of righteousness, as it is said concerning

him, that _a king shall rise and prosper, who is called, The Lord our

righteousness_, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. and likewise, _The Prince of Peace_,

Isa. ix. 6. And that which makes this opinion more probable, is, that it

doth not appear that Jerusalem was called Salem, which is supposed to be

a contraction of the word Jerusalem, till some ages after this; for,

till David conquered it, it was commonly known by the name of Jebus, 1

Chron. xi. 4.

_2dly_, The apostle’s description of him, as being _without father,

without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor

end of life_, is rather applicable to a divine Person than a mere man.

And as for the sense, which is generally given of these words, namely,

that he was without father, _&c._ because no mention is made thereof in

scripture, _viz._ in those two scriptures in the Old Testament, in which

he is spoken of; this seems more strained and forced, than to understand

them according to the proper sense of the words; and, if, indeed, this

imports nothing else, but the silence of scripture, with relation

thereunto, there are many other persons who have as great a right to

this character as Melchizedek; as Job, Elijah, _&c._ whereas Melchizedek

is thus described, as distinguished from all others.

To this we may add, (which will farther strengthen this argument) what

the apostle says, that in this respect, he was _made like the Son of

God_, that is, as is generally supposed, a type of him. Now, if his

being without _father_, _mother_, _descent_, &c. in the common

acceptation of the words, be inconsistent with his being a type of

Christ to the church, in Abraham’s time, then certainly that cannot be

the sense thereof; for he was, without doubt, a type of his priestly,

and kingly office to him, and the church, in his days, as well as to

those who lived in following ages. Now, that he could not be a type

thereof to many, who lived in that age, is evident; for they, who lived

in the place where he was born and died, knew his father, mother,

descent, beginning, or end of life; therefore he was no type of Christ’s

eternal priesthood to them. And as for Abraham, though he might not know

his father, mother, or descent, or the exact time when he was born, and

so, in that respect he might, in part, he made like to the Son of God,

to him, as signifying, that his priestly office was not derived by

descent, as the Aaronical priesthood descended from parents to children:

yet he could not be a type of the everlasting duration of Christ’s

priestly office since he was then no more without end of days, in the

common sense in which that expression was taken, than Abraham, or any

other who lived with him, who could not be supposed to know the time, or

place, of their death. And, if, according to the common opinion,

Melchizedek is said to be without father, mother, descent, _&c._ because

there is no mention thereof in scripture, this could not be a type to

Abraham, or any other, before the word of God was committed to writing.

_3dly_, There is another thing, which may be observed in the apostle’s

description of him, Heb. viii. 8. when he says, that _he liveth_,[151]

and accordingly is opposed to those priests that _die_, by which he

seems to be described as immortal, and so opposed to mortal men. It is

not said, that he once lived, and that we have no mention made of the

time of his death, but _he liveth_, which some conclude to be an

ascription of that divine perfection to him, whereby he is styled the

living God, or, as it is said in one of the following verses, _He ever

liveth_, ver. 25. to denote his eternal priesthood; or, as he says

concerning himself elsewhere, _I am he that liveth, and was dead, and

behold I am alive for evermore_, Rev. i. 8.

_4thly_, That which still makes this opinion more probable, is the

consideration of the place, where they, who defend the other side of the

question, suppose he lived, and the people to whom he ministered as a

priest, which seems not agreeable to the character given him, as the

greatest priest on earth. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, at that time,

were idolaters, or at least, they had no relation to the church of God,

which was then seated in Abraham’s family; for, when Abraham sojourned

in Gerar, not many miles distant from it, in the south-west border of

the land of Canaan, he gives this description of it, that he thought

surely the fear of God was not in this place; and it can hardly be

supposed that Jebus, or Jerusalem, was much better. If the Canaanites

had been members of the true church, Abraham would not have lived as a

stranger and sojourner amongst them, not desirous to converse with them.

Since therefore Jerusalem, or Salem, was inhabited by those who were not

worshippers of the true God, how could Melchizedek be said to be their

priest, or a minister in holy things to them? for, though an holy man

may be a king over a wicked people, such an one cannot well be said to

be a priest to those, who desire not to be found in the exercise of

God’s true worship.

_5thly_, It seems farther probable, that Melchisedek was not a priest,

or king, whose usual place of residence was Jerusalem, where he

administered and reigned, inasmuch as we do not read that Abraham, at

any other time, conversed, or joined with him in worship, though the

place where he sojourned was but a few miles distant from it, which we

can hardly suppose that he would have neglected to do, or that we should

have had no account of any intercourse between these two men, (who must

be reckoned the greatest and best that lived on earth) besides that

mentioned in the scripture we are now considering.

_6thly_, This may be farther argued, from what the apostle says, that

Melchisedek blessed Abraham, and infers, from thence, that he was

superior to him, inasmuch as _the less is blessed of the better_, Heb.

vii. 7. There are but two senses in which a person is said to bless

another; the one is, by praying for a blessing on him, or as God’s

messenger, signifying, that he would bless him; and the other is, by

conferring blessedness upon him, or making him blessed. Now, if

Melchisedek had only blessed Abraham, in the former of these senses,

which he might have done, had he been a mere man, the apostle could not

have inferred from hence, his superiority to Abraham; for the lowest of

men may in this sense, bless the greatest, that is, pray for a blessing

on them, and God might employ such to declare to others that they are

blessed; yet it would not follow, from hence, that they are, in this

respect, greater than them. Melchisedek blessed Abraham, and therefore,

as the apostle infers, was greater than him, and consequently he blessed

him, by making him blessed, or conferring some of those blessings, which

he has to bestow, as a divine Person, the Fountain of blessedness.

These are the most material arguments which are brought in defence of

this opinion; from whence it seems probable, that our Saviour on this

occasion assumed the form of a Man, as he often did, and appeared to

Abraham with the mien and likeness of a King and Priest; as he is said

elsewhere to appear to Joshua, in the form of a warrior, with his sword

drawn in his hand, and soon discovered to him who he was; so we may

suppose, that at this time, he appeared to Abraham as a King, and a

Priest, and discovered to him who he was, and the right he had to the

spoils he had gained, of which he accepted the tithes, partly, to

signify that this was to be the way in which the priesthood was to be

supported in future ages; but principally to give herein a type of that

divine homage, which we owe to him, as the Priest and King of his

people. I will not be too tenacious of this side of the question, but,

to me, it seems the more probable, especially if what is objected

against it does not weaken the force of the arguments brought to support

it; which is now to be considered.

_Object. 1._ The place of Melchisedek’s residence is said to be Salem,

or Jerusalem, in the land of Canaan, where he was a king and priest. Now

this could not be said of our Lord Jesus Christ; for, as his kingdom was

not of this world, so he never resided, or fixed his abode in any part

of it before his incarnation. It is true, he sometimes appeared then in

the form of a Man, or an Angel, that he might occasionally converse with

his people; yet he never continued long, or dwelt amongst them, till he

was made flesh; whereas, Melchizedek seems to be described as an

inhabitant of the land of Canaan, dwelling in Salem, therefore it cannot

he meant of him.

_Answ._ This objection takes some things for granted, that will not

readily be allowed, by those who entertain the contrary way of thinking,

_viz._ that Salem is the name of a place, and that there he resided;

whereas it may be replied to this, that it is rather a character of his

person; for, if Tzedek be a character of his person, as signifying

righteousness, why should it be denied that Salem, from the Hebrew word

Shalom, is also a glorious character, belonging to his person?

especially considering the apostle explains both of them in this sense,

when he says, that these words, by interpretation, are, _King of

righteousness, and King of peace_, Heb. vii. 2. and, if this be true,

there is no force in the other part of the objection, taken from his

residing in any particular place before his incarnation.

_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that our Saviour is said to be a

Priest, _after the order of Melchisedek_, chap. vii. 17. and it is also

added, that _after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another

Priest_, ver. 15. meaning our Saviour; therefore he cannot be the same

person with Melchisedek.

_Answ._ This objection is much more material than any other, which is

brought against this opinion, which, I am apt to think, determines the

sentiments of many, who give into the commonly received opinion

concerning him: But, as it ought to be considered, whether the

arguments, in defence of the other side of the question, be conclusive;

so it may be replied to it; that Christ might be called a Priest, after

the order of Melchisedek, though he were the person intended by him, if

we take the words in this sense; _viz._ that, by his appearing in the

form of a Priest and a King to Abraham, he afforded a type, or figure,

of what he would really be, and do, after his incarnation, and herein

gave a specimen of his Priestly and Kingly office, which he would

afterwards execute. And this might as well be said to be a type hereof,

as any of his appearances, in the form of a man, were typical of his

incarnation, which divines generally call a prelibation thereof, which

differs very little from the sense of the word _type_.

As to what is said concerning another Priest, arising _after the

similitude of Melchisedek_, though it may be reckoned a strong objection

against our argument; yet let it be considered, that after the

similitude of Melchisedek, imports the same thing as after the order of

Melchisedek; and so it signifies, that there is a similitude, or

likeness, between what he then appeared to be, and what he really was,

after his incarnation. And as for his being called _another Priest_,

that does not imply that he was a Priest different from Melchisedek, but

from the priests under the law; for the apostle, as appears by the

context, is comparing Christ’s Priesthood with the Aaronical; and

therefore, when he executed his Priestly office, after his incarnation,

he might well be styled _another Priest_, that is, a Priest not

descending from Aaron, but the anti-type of Melchisedek, as prefigured

by this remarkable occurrence.

Thus concerning that difficult question, who Melchisedek was? All that I

shall add is, whether it were Christ himself, or some other person, yet

it is evident that there was herein a very eminent type of Christ’s

Kingly and Priestly office; and more especially of his Priestly, as

containing in it several things that were not shadowed forth by the

Aaronical priesthood; particularly, though the Aaronical priesthood

contained a type of Christ’s making atonement, by shedding his blood;

yet there was nothing in it that typified the glory of his Person, his

immortality and sinless perfection, the eternal duration of his

Priesthood, or his being immediately raised up by God, for that end; nor

was there herein a type of the Kingly and Priestly office of Christ, as

belonging to the same Person, since the priests under the law were not

kings, nor the kings priests.

Moreover, Melchisedek’s being represented as _without father, without

mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of

life_, plainly signifies, that the execution of his priestly office

depended immediately on God, who raised him up, as an extraordinary

Person, for this end, as well as that he remains a Priest for ever; so

that, if we take both these types together, we have a very plain and

clear representation of Christ’s Priestly office. And this leads us to

consider,

III. The necessity of Christ’s executing this part of his Priestly

office, which consists in his making satisfaction to divine justice.

This is generally denied by those who oppose his divinity; and

particularly the Socinians, who maintain, that God pardons sin without

satisfaction.[152] And others, who do not altogether deny the

satisfaction of Christ, suppose, that God might have pardoned sin

without it; but that it was more expedient to make a demand of it, than

not, inasmuch as his honour, as the Governor of the world, is secured

thereby, and therefore that his demanding satisfaction, is the result of

his will; and accordingly, that he might have required and accepted of a

satisfaction, less valuable than what was given him by our Saviour: This

opinion is equally to be opposed with the former, as derogatory to the

glory of the divine perfections.

Now, when we assert the necessity of satisfaction, we mean, that God

could not, in consistency with his holiness and justice, pardon sin

without it; and that no satisfaction, short of that which Christ gave,

is sufficient to answer the end designed thereby, or worthy to be

accepted by God, as a price of redemption.

And, when we assert that satisfaction was necessary, we would be

understood as intending it in the same sense, as forgiveness of sin, or

salvation is so; the necessity hereof being conditional, or founded on

this supposition, that God designed to save sinners. This, indeed, he

might have refused to have done, and then there would have been no room

for satisfaction to be given to his justice: But, since God designed to

be reconciled to his people, and to bring them to glory, we cannot but

assert the necessity of satisfaction in order thereunto; and, to prove

this, let it be considered,

1. That the necessity hereof appears from the holiness of God; and

accordingly,

(1.) Inasmuch as he is infinitely perfect, he cannot but will and love

that which is most agreeable to his nature, and which contains the

brightest display of his image, which consists in righteousness and true

holiness, as it is said, _The righteous Lord loveth righteousness_,

Psal. xi. 7. And it follows, from hence,

(2.) That he cannot but hate, and have an infinite aversion to, whatever

is contrary hereunto; for, if his love of holiness be founded in the

perfection of his nature, then his hatred of sin, which is opposite to

it, must be founded therein: Thus it is said, _Thou art of purer eyes

than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity_, Hab. i. 13. and

elsewhere, _Thou hatest all workers of iniquity_, Psal. v. 5. Now God’s

hating sin, consists in his infinite opposition to it, and so it is

natural to him, or in his will, to punish it; and consequent thereunto,

in his actual punishing of it. If the first of these be necessary, the

others must be so likewise; or, if he be an holy God, he cannot but

determine to punish sin, and afterwards put his determination in

execution.

(3.) It is fit he should manifest his hatred of sin, otherwise he could

not be glorified by his creatures, as an holy God; for he cannot have

the glory of any attribute ascribed to him, unless there be a visible

display thereof; therefore it is necessary to demonstrate his hatred of

sin, by punishing it; and, hence an obligation arises from a necessity

of nature, and not barely from an act of his will, to bring to condign

punishment all sin, even that which he designs to pardon: But this could

not have been done without a demand of satisfaction to be given, by a

surety, in the sinner’s behalf, which plainly evinces the necessity of

satisfaction, which was the thing to be proved.

2. This farther appears, from the punishment threatened by the law of

God, which is also necessary. For the understanding of which, let it be

considered,

(1.) That God cannot but give a law to intelligent creatures, who, as

such, are the subjects of moral government, and therefore under a

natural obligation to yield obedience to him: But this they could not

do, if the law were not given and promulgated.

(2.) It was necessary for God to annex a threatning to his law, in which

respect punishment would be due to those who violate it, whereby

obedience might be enforced, and that fear, which is excited by it,

would be an additional motive hereunto; otherwise the sinner would be

ready to conclude, that he might go on in his rebellion against God with

impunity.

(3.) If this law be violated, as it is by sin, the truth of God, as the

result of the threatning annexed to it, obliges him to punish it, either

in our own persons, or in the person of our Surety, that so the honour

of his law might be secured, which he is obliged to vindicate, as it

contains a bright display of the glory of his perfections.

3. If God could, consistently with his own perfections, pardon sin

without satisfaction, he would not have sent his well-beloved Son to

suffer for it. This plainly appears from his wisdom and goodness. It is

not consistent with the glory of his wisdom, for him to bring about a

thing with so much difficulty, and with such displays of his vindictive

justice, in punishing one who never offended him, if he could have

answered the great end hereof on easier terms or have brought about the

work of our salvation without it; neither does it consist with his

goodness to inflict punishment, where it is not absolutely necessary,

since, agreeably to this perfection, he delights rather to extend

compassion, than to display his vindictive justice, if it might be

avoided. Accordingly he is described, in scripture, (speaking after the

manner of men) as punishing sin with a kind of regret, or reluctancy,

Hosea. xi. 8. Thus it is said to _be his strange work_, Isa. xxviii. 21.

and that _he doth not afflict wilingly, nor grieve the children of men_,

Lam. iii. 33. but on the other hand, _delighteth in mercy_, Micah vii.

18. Therefore if he could, consistently with his perfections, have

pardoned sin without satisfaction, he could not have commanded the sword

of his vindictive justice to _awake against the man that is his fellow_,

Zech. xiii. 7. as an expedient to bring about an end, that might have

been attained without it.

Moreover, if God could have pardoned sin without satisfaction, then his

giving his own Son to perform it for us, would not have been such a

wonderful instance of divine grace, as it is represented to be in

scripture; for it could not have been the only expedient to bring about

our salvation, if satisfaction were not absolutely necessary

thereunto.[153]

IV. We are now to consider what kind of satisfaction God demanded, for

the expiating of sin. There are many who do not pretend, in all

respects, to deny the necessity of satisfaction; but, when they explain

what they mean by it, it amounts to little more than a denial thereof:

Thus the heathen, who had learned, by tradition that sacrifices were to

be offered, to make atonement for sin, concluded that these were

sufficient to satisfy for it, and thereby to deliver from the guilt

thereof. And some of the Jews, in a degenerate age of the church, seemed

to have nothing else in view, and to have no regard to the spiritual

meaning thereof, or their reference to Christ’s satisfaction, as types

of it, when they rested in them, as supposing, that the multitude of

their sacrifices were sufficient to satisfy for those vile abominations,

which they were guilty of; upon which occasion, God expresses the

greatest dislike thereof, when he says, _To what purpose is the

multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of the burnt-offerings

of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of

bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats_, Isa. i. 11. And elsewhere he tells

them, _I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I

brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or

sacrifices_, Jer. vii. 22. He does not mean that these were not

instituted by him; but it is as though he had said, I did not hereby

intend that they should be reckoned a sufficient price to satisfy my

justice for sin. And, to fence against this supposition, the apostle

says, that _it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats

should take away sins_, Heb. x. 4. for they were far from being a

sufficient price to satisfy God.

Moreover, the Papists speak much of human satisfactions, consisting in

various penances, fastings, leading a mortified life, parting with their

estates, and submitting to voluntary poverty, with a design to make

atonement for sin. The main foundation of this opinion, is their

supposing, that, whatever satisfaction God demands for sin, it is the

result of his will, and therefore he might accept of the smallest

instance of obedience and suffering, as sufficient to compensate for it,

because he has deemed it so; and therefore they distinguish between

giving satisfaction to God and to his justice. God, say they, may accept

of, or be satisfied with the smallest price, instead of that which is

most valuable; whereas nothing can, properly speaking, be said to

satisfy justice, but that which has in it a value in proportion to what

is purchased thereby. As to the former branch of this distinction, we

deny that God can accept of any thing as a price of redemption, but what

has a tendency to secure the glory of his perfections, and that, nothing

less than an infinite price, can do, and therefore the distinction is

vain, and nothing to their purpose; or, if they suppose that God can be

satisfied with what justice does not conclude sufficient, then it is

blasphemous, and derogatory to the divine perfections. Therefore we can

allow of no satisfaction, but what tends to set forth the glory, and

fulfil the demands of divine justice;[154] accordingly, we are to

consider, that the satisfaction which was demanded by the justice of

God, for the expiation of sin, must contain in it two things; namely,

1. It must be of infinite value, otherwise it would not be sufficient to

compensate for the injuries offered to the divine name by sin, which is

objectively infinite, and therefore deserves a punishment proportioned

to it, and consequently the price demanded to satisfy for it, must be of

equal value. The justice of God would cast the utmost contempt on any

thing that falls short hereof: thus the prophet represents one, as

making a very large overture, which one would think sufficient, if a

finite price were so, when he speaks, in a beautiful climax, or

gradation, of coming before the Lord _with burnt-offerings_, and these

well chosen, _calves of a year old_, and a multitude of them; _Will the

Lord be pleased with thousands of rams_, a price which very few were

able to give, _or with ten thousands of rivers of oil_? in which he

offers more than it was possible to give; then he ascends yet higher,

and, if it were sufficient, would part with _his first-born for his

transgression, the fruit of his body, for the sin of his soul_; all

which is reckoned an inconsiderable price, not sufficient to procure the

thing designed thereby; and therefore he that offers it, is advised

instead of pretending to satisfy divine justice by a finite price, _to

walk humbly with his God_, Micah vi. 7, 8. and, whatever obedience he is

obliged to perform, not to have the vanity to think that this is a

sufficient price to answer that end.

2. Satisfaction must bear some similitude, or resemblance, as to the

matter of it, to that debt which was due from those for whom it was to

be given. Here we must consider what was the debt due from us, for which

a demand of satisfaction was made; this was twofold.

_1st_, A debt of perfect and sinless obedience, whereby the glory of

God’s sovereignty might be secured, and the honour of his law

maintained. This debt it was morally impossible for man to pay, after

his fall; for it implies a contradiction to say that a fallen creature

can yield sinless obedience; nevertheless, it was demanded of us, though

fallen; for the obligation could not be disannulled by our disability to

perform it.

_2dly_, There was a debt of punishment, which we were liable to, in

proportion to the demerit of sin, as the result of the condemning

sentence of the law, which threatened death for every transgression and

disobedience. Now, to be satisfaction to the justice of God, it must

have these ingredients in it.

As to the infinite value of the price that was given, this is contested

by none, but those who deny the divinity of Christ; and these arguments

that have been brought in defence of that doctrine; and others, by which

we have proved the necessity that our Mediator should be God, render it

less needful for us, at present, to enlarge on this subject.[160] But

there are many, who do not deny the necessity of an infinite

satisfaction, who will not allow that it is necessary that there should

be a resemblance between the debt contracted, and satisfaction given;

and, by these, it is objected,

_Object. 1._ That the least instance of obedience, or one drop of

Christ’s blood, was a sufficient price to satisfy divine justice; in

defence of which they argue, that these must be supposed to have had in

them an infinite value; but nothing can be greater than what is

infinite, and therefore that one single act of obedience was sufficient

to redeem the whole world of fallen men, or the whole number of fallen

angels, if God had pleased to order it so.

_Answ._ Though we do not deny that the least instance of obedience, or

sufferings performed by our Saviour, would have been of infinite value,

inasmuch as we do not conclude the infinity of obedience to consist in a

multitude of acts, or in its being perfectly sinless; nor do we deem his

sufferings infinite, merely because they were exquisite, or greater than

what mankind are generally liable to in this world, but because they

were the obedience and sufferings of a divine Person; neither do we

deny, that, according to the same method of reasoning, the least act of

obedience and suffering, performed by him, would have been infinite.

Nevertheless, it does not follow from hence, that this would have been a

sufficient price of redemption; for the sufficiency of the price does

not only rise from the infinite value thereof, but from God’s will to

accept of it; and he could not be willing to accept of any price, but

what had a tendency to illustrate and set forth the glory of his

holiness, as a sin-hating God, and of his sovereignty in the government

of the world, in such a way, that the most fit means might be used to

prevent the commission of it, and of his truth, in fulfilling the

threatnings denounced, which man was exposed to, by his violating the

law. Now these ends could not be answered by one single instance of

obedience, or suffering, and therefore God could not deem them

sufficient; and it is plain that he did not, for, if he had, he would

not have delivered our Saviour to suffer all that he did; concerning

whom it is said, _He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us

all_, Rom. viii. 32.

Moreover, it was necessary that redemption should be brought about in

such a way, as would lay the sinner under the highest obligation to

admire the love, both of the Father and the Son. Now, if Christ had

performed only one act of obedience, or suffered in the least degree,

this instance of condescension, though infinite, would not have had so

great a tendency to answer this end; nor could it have been said, as it

is, with a great emphasis of expression, that _God commendeth his love

towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_, Rom.

v. 8.

_Object. 2._ It is objected, by others, that Christ’s active obedience

was no part of the satisfaction which he gave for us, inasmuch as this

was a debt due from him for himself, his human nature (in which alone he

could yield obedience) being under a natural obligation to perform it;

therefore he could not be said to pay that debt for us, which was due

for himself. As for his passive obedience, that, indeed, might be

performed for us, because, being an innocent person, he was not under

any obligation to suffer, but by his own consent; but this cannot be

said of his active obedience. And it is farther objected, that if he had

performed active obedience for us, this would have exempted us from an

obligation to yield obedience ourselves, and consequently this doctrine

leads to licentiousness.

_Answ._ We allow that Christ as Man, was obliged to perform obedience,

as a debt due from him, as a creature, and consequently, now he is in

heaven, he is under the same obligation; though this has no reference to

the work of our redemption, which was finished before he went thither:

nevertheless, the obedience he performed before his death, might be

deemed a part of that satisfaction which he gave to the justice of God

for us; for,

(1.) His being under the law, was the result of his own voluntary

consent, inasmuch as his incarnation, which was necessary, to his

becoming a subject, was the result of the consent of his divine will.

Now, if he came into the world, and thereby put himself into a capacity

of yielding obedience by his own consent, which no other person ever

did, then his obedience, which was the consequence hereof, might be said

to be voluntary, and so deemed a part of the satisfaction which he gave

to the justice of God in our behalf.

(2.) Though we do not deny that Christ’s active obedience was a debt due

to God for himself, yet it does not follow, from hence, that it may not

be imputed to us, nor accepted for us; even as that perfect obedience

which was to have been performed by Adam, according to the tenor of the

first covenant, though it were to have been imputed to all his

posterity, was, nevertheless, primarily due from him for himself.

(3.) As to that part of the objection, in which it is supposed, that

Christ’s obedience for us, would exempt us from an obligation to yield

obedience, this is generally brought, by those who desire to render this

doctrine odious, and take no notice of what we say in explaining our

sense thereof. Therefore, in answer to it, let it be considered, that,

when we say Christ obeyed for us, we do not suppose, that he designed

hereby to exempt us from any obligation to yield obedience to God’s

commanding will, but only to exempt us from performing it with the same

view that he did. We are not hereby excused from yielding obedience to

God, as a Sovereign, but from doing it with a view of meriting hereby,

or making atonement for our defect of obedience, which was the result of

our fallen state; and therefore we are to say, _When we have done all,

we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to

do_, Luke xvii. 10. without considering it as that righteousness, by

which we are to be justified in the sight of God. We understand our

obligation to yield active obedience, in the same sense, as we are

obliged patiently to suffer whatever afflictions God is pleased to lay

on us, from which we are not exempted by Christ’s sufferings: the only

difference between them is, that his sufferings were penal and

satisfactory; he suffered for us, that hereby he might purchase for us

eternal life, which is not the end of a believer’s suffering; therefore,

why may it not be allowed, that Christ might perform obedience for us,

and we, at the same time, not be excused from it?

_Object. 3._ As to what concerns the sufferings of Christ, it is

objected, by others, that the whole of his passive obedience was not

demanded as a price of redemption for us but only what he endured upon

the cross, which was the greatest and most formidable part of his

sufferings; and particularly those which he endured from the _sixth to

the ninth hour_, while there was _darkness over all the land_, in which

his soul was afflicted in an extraordinary manner, which occasioned him

to cry, (Matt. xxvii. 45, 46.) _My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken

me?_[161] As for his other sufferings, endured in the whole course of

his life, these are allowed to have been a convincing evidence of his

love to us, and designed, as an example, to induce us to bear

afflictions with patience; but that it was only his sufferings upon the

cross that were satisfactory, and that was the altar on which he offered

himself for us; which appears from those scriptures which speak of our

redemption and justification, as the effect of his crucifixion and

death, rather than of his sufferings in life.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that, though redemption and salvation

be often attributed, in scripture, to Christ’s death, or to his shedding

his blood upon the cross for us, yet there is, in all of them, a

figurative way of speaking, in which, by a Synecdoche, a part is taken

for the whole; therefore his sufferings in his life, though not

particularly mentioned therein, are not excluded. There is one

scripture, in which, by the same figurative way of speaking, our

justification is ascribed to Christ’s active obedience, when it is said,

_By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous_, Rom. v. 19. in

which, though his passive obedience be not mentioned, it is not

excluded; therefore, when we read of Christ’s sufferings on the cross,

as being a part of his satisfaction, we are not to suppose that his

sufferings in life are excluded. The apostle plainly intimates as much,

when he says, _He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even

the death of the cross_, Phil. ii. 8. he humbled himself not only in his

death, but in all the sufferings he endured unto it, in the whole course

of his life; therefore we must conclude, that what he endured in his

infancy, and that poverty, temptation, reproach, and contradiction of

sinners against himself, and all the other miseries which he underwent,

during the whole course of his life, which were a part of that curse

which was due to us for sin, were submitted to by him to expiate it, and

consequently were a part of that satisfaction.

As for the cross’s being styled, as it is by some ancient and modern

writers, the altar, on which Christ offered himself, we think that

little more than a strain of rhetoric; or, if it be designed to

illustrate the opinion we are now opposing, we deny that it ought to be

called the altar; for it is no where so styled in scripture, neither

have we ground to conclude, that the altar, upon which the sacrifices

under the law were offered, was a type of Christ’s cross in particular;

and, indeed, we have a better explication of the spiritual meaning

thereof, given by Christ himself, when he speaks of the _altar_, as

_sanctifying the gift_, Matt. xxiii. 19. alluding to what is said

concerning its being _most holy, and whatsoever touched it, shall be

holy_, Exod. xxix. 37. from whence it is inferred, that the altar was

more holy than the gift, which was laid upon it, and it signifies, that

the altar, on which Christ was offered, added an excellency to his

offering; whereas nothing could be said to do so, but his divine

nature’s being personally united to his human, which rendered it

infinitely valuable. This is therefore, the altar on which Christ was

offered; or, at least this is that which sanctified the offering, and

not the cross on which he suffered[162].

V. We shall now prove, that what Christ did and suffered, was with a

design to give satisfaction to the justice of God; and, that what he

offered, was a true and proper sacrifice for sin. All allow, that Christ

obeyed and suffered; and even the Socinians themselves will not deny

that Christ suffered for us, since this is so plainly contained in

scripture: But the main stress of the controversy lies in this; whether

Christ died merely for our good, namely, that we might be hereby induced

to believe the truth of the doctrines he delivered, as he confirmed

them, by shedding his blood, or that he might give us an example of

patience and holy fortitude under the various evils we are exposed to,

either in life or death? This is the sense in which they understand

Christ’s dying for us: But there is a great deal more intended hereby,

to wit, that he died in our room and stead, or that he bore that for us,

which the justice of God demanded as a debt first due from us, as an

expedient for his taking away the guilt of sin, and delivering us from

his wrath, which we were liable to. This will appear, if we consider,

1. That he is, for this reason, styled our Redeemer, as having purchased

us hereby, or delivered, us, in a judicial way, out of the hand of

vindictive justice, which is the most proper, if not the only sense of

the word _redemption_. The Socinians, indeed, speak of Christ as a

redeemer; but they understand the word in a metaphorical sense, as

importing his delivering us from some evils, that we were exposed to;

not by paying a price of redemption for us, but by revealing those laws,

or doctrines, which had a tendency to reform the world, or laying down

some rules to direct the conversation of mankind, and remove some

prejudices they had entertained; whereas we assert, that herein he dealt

with the justice of God, as offering himself a sacrifice for sin.

This appears from those scriptures that speak of his _soul_, as made an

_offering for sin_, Isa. liii. 10. or his being _set forth to be a

propitiation, to declare the righteousness of God for the remission of

sins_, Rom. iii. 25. in which respect, he answered the types thereof

under the law, in which atonement is said to be made by sacrifice,

which, being an act of worship, was performed to God alone, whereby sin

was typically expiated, and the sinner discharged from the guilt, which

he was liable to; and, in this respect Christ is said, as the Anti-type

thereof, to have _offered himself without spot to God_, when he shed his

blood for us, or to have _put away sin by the sacrifice of himself_,

Heb. ix. 26. and to have _given himself for us, an offering and a

sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour_.

Moreover, what he did and suffered, is styled a _ransom_, or price of

redemption; and accordingly they, who were concerned therein, are said

to be _bought with a price_, 1 Cor. vi. 20. and he saith, concerning

himself, that _he came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and

to give his life a ransom for many_, Matt. xx. 28. We read, in

scripture, of a person’s paying a sum of money, as a _ransom for his

life_, when it was forfeited, by his having been the culpable occasion

of the death of another, Exod. xxi. 29, 30. and if such a consideration,

when exacted as a price of redemption, be styled a ransom, a person’s

laying down his life for another, may, with equal propriety, be so

called. And this Christ is said, in many scriptures, to have done for

us; upon which account he is styled our Redeemer.

_Object._ We oftentimes read, in scripture, of redemption, where there

is no price paid: Thus Israel is said to be _redeemed out of Egypt_,

Deut. vii. 8. _and Babylon_, Micah iv. 10. And elsewhere, speaking of

their deliverance out of captivity, God saith, _I will redeem thee out

of the hand of the terrible_, Jer. xv. 21. whereas there was no price of

redemption paid for their deliverance, either out of Egypt or Babylon,

but it was by the immediate power of God. So Jacob, when he speaks of

his deliverance from evil by the angel, styles this, his _redemption

from all evil_, Gen. xlviii. 16. Now, though we allow that the angel he

there speaks of, was our Lord Jesus Christ; yet the deliverance he

wrought for Jacob was not by paying a price for him, but by exerting his

divine power in order thereto.

Moreover, others are called redeemers, who have been God’s ministers in

delivering his people: Thus Moses is called a _ruler and deliverer by

the hands of the angel, which appeared to him in the bush_, Acts vii.

35. so our translators rendered it[163]: but it ought to be rendered a

_Redeemer_; therefore there may be redemption without satisfaction.

_Answ._ This objection, how plausible soever it may seem to be, is not

unanswerable; and the reply which may be given to it, is, that though

deliverance from evil may be styled _redemption_, as it is oftentimes in

scripture: the reason of its being so called, is, because of the

reference which it has to that ransom that Christ was, after his

incarnation, to pay for his people. This was the foundation of all that

discriminating grace that God, in former ages, extended to his people,

it was on the account hereof that he did not suffer them to perish in

Egypt, or Babylon, and accordingly their deliverance is called a

_redemption_, from thence; whereas, we never find that any deliverance,

which God wrought for his enemies, who have no concern in Christ’s

redemption, is so called.

And whereas Moses is styled, in that scripture but now referred to, a

_Redeemer_, the deliverance he wrought for them, as an instrument made

use of by the angel that appeared to him, may, without any impropriety

of expression, be called a redemption, and he a redeemer, inasmuch as

that deliverance that Christ wrought by him, was founded on the purchase

which he designed to pay, otherwise Moses, would not have been so

styled.

2. There are many scriptures that speak of Christ’s obedience and

sufferings, as being in our room and stead, whereby he performed what

was due from us to the justice of God which is the proper notion of

satisfaction. Thus we are to understand those expressions, in which he

is said to _die for us_, as the apostle says; _In due time Christ died

for the ungodly, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_,

Rom. v. 6, 8. by which we are to understand, that he endured those

sufferings in life and death which we are liable to, with a design to

procure for us justification, reconciliation to God, and eternal

salvation, and herein he was substituted in our room and stead, as well

as died for our good.[164]

That Christ died, in this sense, for his people, farther appears, from

his being therein said to bear their sins, as the apostle expresses it,

_Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree_, 1 Pet. ii.

24. and elsewhere it is said, _He was wounded for our transgressions, he

was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon

him, and with his stripes we are healed_; and _the Lord hath laid on him

the iniquity of us all; He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, he was

cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my

people was he stricken_, Isa. liii. 5-8. all which expressions plainly

denote that he suffered that which was due to them, or that he died in

their room and stead.

And this he is farther said to do, in a sense, in which none but he ever

died for any other, and therefore much more must be understood by it,

than his dying for the good of mankind. The apostle speaking of this

matter, opposes Christ’s sufferings to his own, with respect to the end

and design thereof, when he saith; _Was Paul crucified for you_, 1 Cor.

i. 13. which is as though he should say, it is true, I have suffered

many things for the church’s advantage: yet it would be a vile thing for

you to entertain the least surmise, as though my suffering were endured

with the same view that Christ suffered; for he died as a sacrifice for

sin, that he might give a price of redemption to the justice of God,

which no one else ever did.

_Object. 1._ It is objected, to what hath been said in defence of

Christ’s dying in our room and stead, inasmuch as he bare our

iniquities, that these expressions denote nothing else but his taking

them away, which he might do, if he had not died in our room and stead.

Thus we have an explication of that scripture before mentioned, which

speaks of Christ’s bearing our iniquities, wherein it appears that

nothing is intended thereby but his taking away some afflictions we were

liable to; as it is said, upon the occasion of his _casting out devils,

and healing all that were sick_, that this was done _that it might be

fulfilled, which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took

our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses_, Mat. viii. 16, 17. which he

might be said to do, without his dying to satisfy the justice of God for

us in our room and stead.

_Answ._ There are two things to be considered in the death of Christ,

which, though distinct, are not to be separated; one is, his bearing

those griefs, sorrows, or punishments, that were due to us for sin; the

other is, his taking them away, as the effect and consequence of his

having born or answered for them; and the design of the prophet Isaiah,

in his liii. chapter, is to shew that Christ did both these, as appears

by several expressions therein; accordingly when he is said, in ver. 4.

_To have borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows_, both these senses

are to be applied to it; one of which is explained by the apostle, in 1

Pet. ii. 24. _Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the

tree_; and the evangelist, in the text under our present consideration

explains these words of the prophet in both senses, when he saith,

_Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses_, that is, he

submitted to give satisfaction for them, and, as the consequence

thereof, healed those diseases which we were liable to, as the fruit of

sin. The objection therefore taken from this scripture, against the

doctrine we are maintaining, is of no force; for though Christ took away

those miseries, which were the effects and consequences of sin, it doth

not follow that he did not do this, by making satisfaction for it.

_Object. 2._ There are other ends of Christ’s dying for us, mentioned in

scripture, where though the same mode of speaking be used, different

ends are said to be attained thereby, from that of his giving

satisfaction to the justice of God: Thus it is said, that _he gave

himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil

world_, Gal. i. 4. _that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people,

zealous of good works_, Tit. ii. 14. and that he might hereby _leave us

an example that we should follow his steps_, 1. Pet ii. 21. and that he

might acquire to himself some additional circumstances of glory, thus it

is said, _He died, and rose and revived, that he might be Lord, both of

the dead and living_, Rom. xiv. 9. These, and such-like ends, are said

to be attained by Christ’s death, which do not argue that he died in our

stead, but only for our advantage.

And to this it may be added, that others are represented as suffering

for the church, as well as Christ, namely, for their good, where there

is no difference, in the mode of speaking, from that other scripture, in

which Christ is said to die for us. Thus the apostle saith, _I rejoice

in my sufferings for you_, Col. i. 24. and this he explains elsewhere,

when he speaks of his being afflicted for the church’s _consolation and

salvation_, 2 Cor. i. 6.

_Answ._ We do not deny but that there are other ends designed by

Christ’s sufferings and death, besides his giving satisfaction to divine

justice, which are the result and consequence thereof; therefore we must

consider him as dying in our stead, and then the fruits and effects,

which redound to our advantage; one is so far from being inconsistent

with the other, that it is necessary to it; and, in some of the

scriptures but now mentioned, both these ends are expressed, the former

being the ground and reason of the latter; as when it is said, _He gave

himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil

world_: the meaning is, he first made satisfaction for sin, and then, as

the consequence thereof, in the application of redemption, he designed

to deliver us from the evils we are exposed to in this world; and when,

in another scripture before-mentioned, the apostle speaks of _Christ’s

purifying unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works_, he

mentions this not as the chief, much less as the only design of his

giving himself for his people; but it is said, he did this first, _that

he might redeem them from all iniquity_, namely, by giving a

satisfaction to justice for them, and then, that having redeemed, he

might purify them to himself; and when it is said, that _he died, that

he might be Lord, both of the dead and living_, the meaning is, that he

might purchase that dominion which he hath over them as Mediator; or

that having satisfied divine justice for them, as a Priest, he might,

have dominion over them as a King; so that these two ends are not

inconsistent with each other, and therefore the latter doth not destroy

the former.

And as for that scripture, in which the apostle speaks of his sufferings

for the church, or for their _consolation and salvation_, we may

observe, that he doth not say that he suffered for them, much less, in

their room and stead, or as a propitiation to make reconciliation, that

hereby he might promote their consolation and salvation, as Christ did;

much less is it said of any besides him, that _he gave his life a ransom

for them_, which is an expression peculiar to himself, wherein his death

is represented as a price of redemption for them[165].

3. That Christ died in our room and stead, and consequently designed

hereby to give satisfaction to the justice of God for our sin, appears

from his death’s being typified by the sacrifices under the ceremonial

law, which, it is plain, were substituted in the room of the offender,

for whom they were offered. We read _of the priest’s laying his hand on

the head of the sacrifice, and confessing over it the iniquities_ of

those for whom it was offered, upon which occasion it is said to _have

born them_, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. And the consequence thereof was their

being discharged from the guilt which they had contracted, which is

called, making atonement for sin. Now that this was a type of Christ’s

making satisfaction for our sins, by his death, is evident, inasmuch as

the apostle having spoken concerning this ceremonial ordinance, applies

it to him, when he saith, that _Christ was once offered to bear the sins

of many_, Heb. ix. 28. And elsewhere, when referring to _the sacrifice

of the Lord’s passover_, as the paschal lamb was styled, Exod. xii. 27.

He says that _Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us_, 1 Cor. v. 7.

And, as such, he is said _to be made sin for us, who knew no sin, that

we might be made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. And as

they who were ordained to perform this service, are called priests,

Christ, as typified thereby, is so styled.

I am sensible it will be objected, that the sacrifices under the

ceremonial law were not instituted with a design to typify Christ’s

death; which would hardly have been asserted by any, as being so

contrary to the sense of many scriptures, had it not been thought

necessary to support the cause they maintain. But, having said something

concerning this before, in considering the origin of the ceremonial

law[166], I shall only add, that it is very absurd to suppose that God

appointed sacrifices not as types of Christ, but to prevent their

following the custom of the Heathen, in sacrificing to their gods, and

that they did not take their rites of sacrificing from the Jews, but the

Jews from them; and God, foreseeing that they would be inclined to

follow their example herein, indulged them as to the matter, and only

made a change with respect to the object thereof, in ordaining, that,

instead of offering sacrifice to idols, they should offer it to him. But

this runs counter to all the methods of providence in the government of

the church, which have been so far from giving occasion to it to

symbolize with the religion of the Heathen, in their external rites of

worship, that God strictly forbade all commerce with them. Thus Abraham

was called out of Ur of the Chaldees, an idolatrous country, to live in

the land of Canaan, and there he was to be no other than a stranger, or

sojourner, that he might not, by too great familiarity with the

inhabitants thereof learn their ways. And afterwards the Jews were

prohibited from having any dealings with the Egyptians; not because

civil commerce was unlawful, but lest this should give occasion to them

to imitate them in their rites of worship; to prevent which, the

_multiplying horses_ was forbidden, Deut. xvii. 16. upon which occasion

the church saith, in Hos. xiv. 3. _We will not ride upon horses, neither

will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods_, that

is, we will not do any thing that may be a temptation to us to join with

the Egyptians, or other Heathen nations, in their idolatry; therefore

certainly God did not ordain sacrifices in compliance with the Heathen,

but to typify Christ’s death.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove that Christ gave satisfaction to the

justice of God for sin, as he was a true and proper sacrifice for it. I

might, for the farther strengthening of this argument, have proved, that

the end of Christ’s death, assigned by the Socinians, namely, that he

might make atonement for sin, can hardly be reckoned an expedient to

confirm any doctrine; for there are many instances of persons having

laid down their lives to confirm doctrines that have been false, and

nothing more is proved hereby, but that the person believes the doctrine

himself, or else is under the power of delusion or distraction; whereas

a person’s believing the doctrine he advances is no evidence of the

truth thereof: and as for our Saviour’s confirming his doctrines, that

was sufficiently done by the miracles which he wrought for that end. And

indeed, were this the only end of Christ’s dying, I cannot see how it

differs from the death of the apostles, and other martyrs, for the sake

of the gospel; whereas Christ laid down his life with other views, and

for higher ends, than any other person ever suffered.

And to this we may add, that if Christ died only to confirm his

doctrine, or, as it is farther alleged, by those whom we oppose, that

herein he might give us an example of submission to the divine will and

patience in suffering, this would have been no manner of advantage to

the Old Testament saints; for Christ could not be an example to them,

nor were the doctrines, which they pretend he suffered to confirm, such

as took place in their time. Therefore Christ was no Saviour to them,

neither could they reap any advantage by what he was to do and suffer;

nor could they have been represented as desiring and hoping for his

coming, or, as it is said of Abraham, _rejoicing to see his day_, John

viii. 56. and if we suppose that they were saved, it must have been

without faith in him. According to this method of reasoning, they not

only militate against Christ’s being a proper sacrifice; but render his

cross of none effect, at least to them that lived before his

incarnation; and his death, which was the greatest instance of love that

could be expressed to the children of men, not absolutely necessary to

their salvation.[167]

_Object._ Before we close this head, we shall consider an objection

generally brought against the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, namely,

that he did not undergo the punishment due for our sins, because he did

not suffer eternally; nor were his sufferings attended with that

despair, and some other circumstances of punishment, which sinners are

liable to in the other world.

_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that the infinite value of Christ’s

sufferings did compensate for their not being eternal. And, indeed, the

eternity of sufferings is the result of their not being satisfactory,

which cannot be applicable to those that Christ endured; and as for that

despair, attended with impatience, and other sins committed by those

that suffer eternal punishments, that arises from the eternal duration

of them, as well as from the corruption of nature, which refuses to

subscribe to the justice of God therein, while complaining of the

severity of his dispensations.

Thus we have considered Christ’s death, as a true and proper sacrifice

for sin. We might now take notice of an expression that is used in this

answer, which is taken from the words of the apostle, that _once offered

himself_, Heb. ix. 28. and that _without spot to God_, ver. 14. This

offering being sufficient to answer the end designed, there was no need

of repeating it, or of his doing any thing else with the same view; the

justice of God having declared itself fully satisfied when he was raised

from the dead. But having before considered the infinite value of what

he did and suffered, and its efficacy to bring about the work of our

redemption, whereby it appears to be more excellent than all the

sacrifices that were offered under the ceremonial law, I need not say

any more on that subject; and as we have also considered Christ as being

sinless, and therefore offering himself as a Lamb, without spot and

blemish, and how this was the necessary result of the extraordinary

formation and union of the human nature with his divine Person, and the

unction which he received from the Holy Ghost; I shall only observe, at

present, what is said concerning his offering himself to God. This he is

said to have done, in the scripture but now referred to, _through the

eternal Spirit_; which words are commonly understood of his eternal

Godhead, which added an infinite value to his sacrifice, or, like the

altar, sanctified the gift, which is certainly a great truth: But it

seems more agreeable, to the most known sense of the word _Spirit_, to

understand it concerning his presenting, or making a tender of the

service he performed by the hand of the eternal Spirit unto God, as an

acceptable sacrifice.

But the main difficulty to be accounted for, in this scripture, is, what

is objected by the Socinians, and others, who deny his deity, namely,

how he could be said to offer himself to God, since that is the same as

to say, that he offered himself to himself, he being, as we have before

proved, God equal with the Father. But there is no absurdity in this

assertion, if it be understood concerning the service performed by him

in his human nature, which, though it was rendered worthy to be offered,

by virtue of its union with his divine Person, this act of worship

terminated on the Godhead, or tended to the securing the glory of the

perfections of that divine nature, which is common to all the divine

Persons; and it is in this sense that some ancient writers are to be

understood, when they say, that Christ may be said to offer up himself

to himself, that is, the service performed in the human nature was the

thing offered, and the object hereof, to which all acts of worship are

referred, was the divine nature, which belongs to himself as well as the

Father.[168]

VI. We shall now consider the persons for whom, as a Priest, Christ

offered himself, and so enter on that subject, that is so much

controverted in this present age, namely, whether Christ died for all

men, or only for the elect, whom he designed hereby to redeem, and bring

to salvation; and here let it be premised.

I. That it is generally taken for granted, by those who maintain either

side of the question, that the saving effects of Christ’s death do not

redound to all men, or that Christ did not die, in this respect, for all

the world, since to assert this would be to argue that all men shall be

saved, which every one supposes contrary to the whole tenor of

scripture.

2. It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of Christ’s death to all

men, as to what concerns their salvation, that it may truly be said,

that there are some blessings redounding to the whole world, and more

especially to those who sit under the sound of the gospel, as the

consequence of Christ’s death; inasmuch as it is owing hereunto, that

the day of God’s patience is lengthened out, and the preaching of the

gospel continued to those who are favoured with it; and that this is

attended, in many, with restraining grace, and some instances of

external reformation, which (though it may not issue in their salvation)

has a tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater degree

condemnation, that would otherwise ensue. These may be called the

remote, or secondary ends of Christ’s death, which was principally and

immediately designed to redeem the elect, and to purchase all saving

blessings for them, which shall be applied in his own time and way:

Nevertheless others, as a consequence hereof, are made partakers of some

blessings of common providence, so far as they are subservient to the

salvation of those, for whom he gave himself a ransom.

3. It is allowed on both sides, and especially by all that own the

divinity and satisfaction of Christ, that his death was sufficient to

redeem the whole world, had God designed that it should be a price for

them, which is the result of the infinite value of it; therefore,

4. The main question before us is, whether God designed the salvation of

all mankind by the death of Christ, or whether he accepted it as a price

of redemption for all, so that it might be said that he redeemed some

who shall not be saved by him? This is affirmed by many, who maintain

universal redemption, which we must take leave to deny. And they farther

add, as an explication hereof, that Christ died that he might put all

men into a salvable state, or procure a possibility of salvation for

them; so that many might obtain it, by a right improvement of his death,

who shall fall short of it; and also that it is in their power to

frustrate the ends thereof, and so render it ineffectual. This we judge

not only to be an error, but such as is highly derogatory to the glory

of God; which we shall endeavour to make appear, and to establish the

contrary doctrine, namely, that Christ died to purchase salvation for

none but those who shall obtain it. This may be proved,

I. From those distinguishing characters that accompany salvation, which

are given to those for whom he died.

1. They are called his _sheep_, in John x. 11. _I am the good Shepherd,

the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep_. This metaphor must

certainly imply, that they, for whom Christ died, are distinguished from

the world, as the objects of his immediate care, and special gracious

providence: But, besides this, there are several things in the context,

which contain a farther description of these _sheep_, for whom he laid

down his life, which cannot be applied to the whole world: Thus it is

said, in ver. 14. _I know my sheep, and am known of them_, that is, with

a knowledge of affection, as the word _knowledge_ is often used in

scripture, when applied to Christ, or his people. Again, these sheep are

farther described, as those who shall certainly obtain salvation; as our

Saviour says concerning them, in ver. 27, 28. _My sheep hear my voice,

and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life,

and they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my

hand_: but this privilege, without doubt, belongs not to the whole

world.

They are also considered as believers, inasmuch as faith is the

necessary consequence of Christ’s redemption, and accordingly are

distinguished from the world, or that part thereof, which is left in

unbelief and impenitency: Thus Christ says, concerning those who

rejected his Person and gospel, in ver. 26. _Ye believe not, because ye

are not of my sheep_.

2. They for whom Christ died are called his _friends_, and, as such, the

objects of his highest love, in John xv. 13. _Greater love hath no man

than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends_, and they are

farther described, in the following words, as expressing their love to

him, by _doing whatsoever he commandeth them_; and, he calls them

friends, so they are distinguished from servants, or slaves, who, though

they may be made partakers of common favours, yet he imparts not his

secrets to them; but, with respect to these, he says, in ver. 15, 16.

_All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you_;

And they are farther distinguished from the world, inasmuch as they are

_chosen by Christ, and ordained that they should go and bring forth

fruit_; and there are several other privileges which accompany

salvation, that are said to belong to these friends of Christ, for whom

he died.

_Object._ It is objected, that what Christ here says, concerning his

friends, is particularly directed to his disciples, with whom at that

time he conversed and these he considers as persons who had made a right

improvement of his redeeming love; and therefore, that redemption which

the whole world might be made partakers of, if they would, these were

like to reap the happy fruits and effects of.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that whatever promises, or

privileges, Christ’s disciples were made partakers of, if these do not

immediately respect their character as ministers, but as Christians,

they are equally to be applied to all believers. Now, that what Christ

says to them, whom he calls his friends, is applicable to all believers,

appears from their being described as _abiding in him_, and _bringing

forth much fruit_, under the powerful influence of his grace, _without

whom they can do nothing_; and, when he speaks, in ver. 19, 26. of the

_world’s hating them, because they are not of the world_, and of _the

Comforter’s being sent to testify of him_, in order to the confirmation

of their faith, this belongs to all believers, as such; therefore they

are as much described as Christ’s friends, for whom he laid down his

life, as his disciples, to whom he more immediately directed his

discourse.