02.01.05. Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5. Contains a Fifth Argument in Favour of the Limited Extent of CHRIST’s Death
REDEMPTION which is effected by the Death of Christ, Is a clear and cogent Argument in Favour of the limited Extent of his Death.
1. Redemption may be considered as metaphorical; that is a mere Deliverance out of Misery and Servitude, without the Payment of any Price. Thus the Israelites are said to be redeemed (1 Chronicles 17:21.) out of the Hands of the Egyptians, when no Price, or valuable Consideration, was given for their Release from Bondage. The Socinians maintain, that such is our Redemption by Christ, that he paid no Price, or valuable Consideration, for our Deliverance from the penal Effects of Sinf3.
2. It is proper, and that is when a Price is given, or a valuable Consideration, is yielded by him who acts the Part of a Redeemer, for those who enjoy Liberty in Consequence of his so doing, (1). This may have Place in the Deliverance of Captives, who are held under Confinement by a Conqueror. (2.) In the Deliverance of Criminals from deferred Punishment, in this View, our Redemption is to be considered, for we are Criminals, and obnoxious to very severe Penalty, for our Offences, against God, our Sovereign, and our Judge.
3. Christ as our Redeemer paid a valuable Price, or Consideration, for our Redemption. In order fairly to make out this, it will be necessary to prove — That he suffered in our Stead — That his Sufferings were that Penalty, to which we were obnoxious — That those Sufferings of Christ were a proper Price, or valuable Consideration, for our Deliverances and Exemption from Punishment.
I. Christ suffered in our Place and Stead not merely for our Good, as the Socinians and Armininians urge: For though it is certain, that in suffering in our Room he suffered for our Good, yet this he might be supposed to do, without suffering in our Stead. The observation of two Things will fully clear up this.
1. Christ was a Surety to God for those Persons, on whose Account he died; hence he is said to be the Surety of a better Testament, or Covenant, diaqhkhv (Hebrews 7:22.). For this Reason, his Blood is called the Blood of the everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:11.). He was not a Surety for God to Sinners, as the Socinians, and Arminians contendf4; he stood in no Need of a Surety. to make good his Engagements; it is blasphemous to imagine it, the Thought thereof is a horrid Reflection, on the Power, or Veracity of God. And therefore if Christ was a Surety at all, he was our Surety, and took our Debt upon him, as such, he died, in order to clear that Debt, which necessarily supposes his Substitution in our Place, or Relation to the Law of God.
2. He is expressly said to have suffered for us; i.e. in our Stead; for the Preposition uper evidently designs the Substitution of one Person in the Room and Place of another ina uper sou diakonou, That in thy Stead be might have ministered (Philemon 1:13.), uper Crisou deomeqa. We pray you in Christ’s Stead (2 Corinthians 5:20.), uper gar tou agaqou for a good Man (Romans 5:7.), i.e. in the Stead of a good Man, and no Reason can be assigned, why it should not be taken in this Sense, when it is said, Crisov uper hman apeqane, Christ died for us; the Just suffered for the Unjust (1 Peter 3:18), uper adikwn in Stead of the Unjust, agreeable to the Sense of the Preposition in other Places, until therefore some substantial and clear Reason is assigned for a different Sense, we shall not grant what is merely begg’d, the Cause is too important to allow of such a Complement. The Reason which is urged against this Sense, taken from its being said that Christ suffered pdei amartiwn, i.e. for Sins (1 Peter 3:18.), is so far, from militating with it, that it abundantly confirms it, for he of whom it is declared, that he suffers for the Crimes of another, must be understood to suffer in the Stead of that other Person, when it is affirmed that he suffers for him.
II. Christ suffered the Penalty, that they were liable to, on whole Account he died. Which thus appears:
1. Their Guilt was imputed to him: He was made Sin for them (2 Corinthians 5:21.), the Lord laid on him the Iniquities of us all (Isaiah 53:6.), he bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree (1 Peter 2:24.). Christ was in himself innocent, but by Imputation, he was made Sin or Guilty, without that, his Sufferings could not be of a penal Nature, for proper Punishment is the Infliction of the Evil of Suffering, for the Evil of Sin; Penalty therefore always bears Respect to a Charge of Offence, committed either by the Person himself who suffers, or by others, for and in whose Stead he suffers, which is the Care here. Nor is there any thing unjust in this, if the Party offended, hath a Power of excusing the guilty Party and of accepting the Engagement of another to suffer for him, and he who engages, hath a Power over his Life, if that is at his Disposal, and he is free to resign it, which Things though they are not found among Men, they are all true, and actually found here, or else we are undone for EVER.
2. He was made a Curse: That very Thing from which we are freed, by the Death of Christ, he was made in dying for us, which is the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, he redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us (Galatians 3:12.). No, say the Socinians and Arminians, he was not properly made a Curse, if not properly, then not at all; for there is no improper Sense, in which he could be made a Curse, the Apostle affirms, he was made a Curse for us, every one knows whom we ought to believe, the inspired Writer rather than those Men.
3. Our gracious Redeemer sustained the Shock of the Father’s vindictive Displeasure: What less, than this, can be the Import of such Modes of Expression as these: It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to Grief ( Isaiah 43:10.), and awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd, against the Man that is my Fellow, finite the Shepherd ( Zechariah 13:7.). This awful Language is expressive of a real and positive Act, of God himself against his Son, as the Surety of Sinners, and standing charged with their Guilt, which must be an Act of Vengeance. The whole Punishment due to Sin, when punished in such a Subject as Christ is, was inflicted on him, who had infinite Dignity, whole Sufferings therefore were of infinite Value, and of Consequence, it was not necessary that they should be endless in Duration, because they were in Value immense: Hence it is evident that the Shortness of the Time of his Sufferings, is no just Objection, to his undergoing that very Punishment, which was due to, or from us; though Socinians and Arminians are pleated to argue it is.
III. Christ’s Sufferings were a proper Price, or valuable Consideration for our Redemption. The Socinians deny that his Death was a Price, though it is expressly so called, Lutron, (Matthew 20:28.), i.e. a Price of Redemption, which is the proper Signification of the Word. The Arminians will nor allow, that it was a full, and adequate Price; but that it was so according to the Estimation of God, or his gracious Acceptation. And tome others, who perhaps would take it amiss, to be reckoned of that Party, agree with them therein; thus Dr. Doddridge speaking of what Christ paid for us, faith, it was GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED of God, as a valuable Consideration . This is infinitely to sink the Merit of the Redeemer, below its true Nature; for his Death must needs be an adequate and full Price of Redemption, or a complete Payment of our Debt; because he suffered that very Punishment, which was due to the Criminals he intended to redeem, and was equal, in Dignity, to their offended Judge, who inflicted that Penalty. The Sufferings of an innocent Person, in the Room of the Guilty, ought to be allowed and accepted, as a valuable Consideration, for their Deliverance, if he suffers all that penal Evil which the Law threatens, Justice requires it, it is not an Act of Favour, but of Righteousness: And therefore, if Christ really suffered for Sinners, the WHOLE of that Punishment, which was due to, or from them, in Right and Justice, they are intitled to Impunity: If indeed he has not, but a Part of it only, then we are left in a miserable Condition; for we are unable to bear the least Part of the Penalty our Sins deserve. But the Father expects no more for our Deliverance and Redemption, than Christ has paid: And therefore all those for whom he died, have Remission of Sins, Freedom from Condemnation, and Security from WRATH. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, the Forgiveness of Sins (Ephesians 2:7.). Where is therefore now no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1.). Being justified by his Blood, we shall be saved from Wrath through him. The universal Extent of the Death of Christ, supposes the Reverse of there Things, so plainly expressed, in the Holy Scriptures: That the Surety bore Sin, and that the Sinner remains under a Charge of it. — That our Saviour was made a Curse, and that the Offender continues under it. That our Lord sustained the infinite Displeasure and Wrath of God, and that those (at least many, yea the greater Part of them) for whom he so did, will eternally lie under his awful Vengeance. Thus Men take the Liberty to depreciate the Merit of the Redeemer under a Pretence of extending it, and to contradict the plainest Evidence of the Word of God, in Favour of their own Opinions, which have no Foundation in the sacred Writings, as I hope fully to evince and prove hereafter. The Author of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, makes a Concession which (if I mistake not) is entirely inconsistent with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, though he appears a zealous Advocate for it, (in a marginal Note.) It is this, I cannot find that Scripture once asserts, that Christ redeemed all Men, or died to redeem them all. I beg Leave to ask this Gentleman, Whether Christ died with an Intention to redeem such for whom he paid a Price of Redemption? Surely he must: The Scripture represents his Death as a Price of Redemption; and I should think his Death was that in his Intention, which it was in Fact; if therefore he died for all Men, in his Death he intended to pay a Price of Redemption for all Men, or died to redeem them all. The Arminians in order to reconcile the Doctrine of universal Redemption, with particular Salvation; or the Happiness of a Part of human Nature only, with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, distinguish upon Redemption, as impetrated, and as applied. They suppose that Redemption was impetrated for all Men; but that it is applied to some only, the Reason of which is, all do not perform those Conditions, upon which the Application of Redemption dependsf5. To this I answer: Though the Impetration of Redemption, and the Application of it, may be distinguished, they cannot be separated: For it is unjust to render the Enjoyment of that uncertain which is impetrated, or obtained, by the Payment of a proper, and full Price, to those for whom it is so obtained, by the Injunction of any Conditions on them. It would be acting an injurious Part to him, who paid that Price. And therefore, since Redemption is not applied to all Men, but to some only, it was not impetrated, or obtained for all Men, but for a Part of the human Nature only. Upon the Whole, we may safely conclude, That the Extent of Christ’s Death is not universal, but particular, and limited to some.