02.01.06. Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6. Contains a Sixth Argument in Favour of the Limited Extent of CHRIST’s Death THAT Reconciliation which Christ effected by his Death, seems to me, a nervous Argument in Favour of the limited Extent of it. The Doctrine of divine Reconciliation supposes not any Change, in the Disposition of Gods or from a Purpose of inflicting Punishment, to friendly Design of conferring Benefits, neither of which are compatible with the Perfections of God: And therefore Apprehensions of this Sort, are by no Means to be entertained, when we speak of that Peace which Christ has made for Sinners. But it supposes an infinite Displeasure with Sin, in God. A Disapprobation of our Persons, considered as Offenders; and the Engagement of divine Justice against us, as Transgressors: All which are perfectly consistent, with the everlasting Love of God to us, and with his gracious Choice of us in Christ to eternal Salvation; and with the invariable Approbation of our Persons, as view’d in the Beloved. Hence it appears, That Reconciliation with God, by the Death of Christ, is not a Procurement of divine Favour, as the Socinians object to us: But it really is an Effect thereof, There is no Repugnancy, between the free, sovereign, and eternal Love of God to his Elect, and the Doctrine of real Peace, being made for them by the Blood of Christ’s Cross. The pretended Inconsistency of God’s good Will and Favour, Love to and Delight in his People, with actual, and proper Reconciliation, which is effected by the Sufferings of the Redeemer, is no other than a foolish Objection of the Socinians, who are professed Adversaries, to the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ. And it is Pity, that any through a Desire to maintain the precious Truth of God’s Free, immutable, and eternal Love to his People should in the least countenance an Objection formed by the worst Enemies, which the Gospel has, against the proper and real Atonement of Christ: Since there is no Inconsistency in these Things; but both are alike true, and of equal Moment, in our Salvation, viz. The free Love of God to his People, and Atonement made for their Sins, by the Sufferings of our blessed Lord. The Ground of this Mistake, is, considering God as attended with human Passions, than which, nothing more dishonourable to the divine Being, can by a Creature be deviled. Reconciliation is not a Change in the Heart of God, from an angry Disposition, to a friendly Affection, as it is in Men; but it is a full, and proper Satisfaction to his violated Law, and offended Justice, Nor is another Objection which the Socinians make, of the least Weight; i.e. That God is never said to be reconciled to Men; but that we are said to be reconciled to him, by the Death of his Sonf6. For the Party to whom Christ offered himself, as a Sacrifice, is reconciled, which was not Men, but God. Besides, it is the usual Mode of speaking, to express Reconciliation, by the Party who offends, becoming reconciled, to the Party offended: Go thy Way, and first be reconciled to thy Brother (Matthew 5:24.). God in this Affair is to be considered, as a Judge, insisting on a plenary Satisfaction to his Law, and Justice, which being given, he hath no farther Demand to make; and therefore is most properly said to be appeased, or reconciled to Sinners.

I. Christ was to make Peace or Reconciliation: Let him take hold of my Strength; i.e. on Christ who is the Son of Man, whom God has made strong for himself: And is called the Power of God, that he may make Peace with me, and he shall make Peace with me (1 Corinthians 1:24; Isaiah 27:5.). One gracious End of the Messiah’s being cut off; but not for himself, was to make Reconciliation for Iniquity (Daniel 9:24-26.). The Church under the legal Dispensation, was taught to expect the great Benefit, of real Atonement, or Peace and Reconciliation, by and through the Sufferings of the Messiah: And the Saints then acted Faith on that Atonement: The Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5.).

II. The Nature of the Sufferings of our blessed Redeemer, is an evident Proof, that he suffered in order to make Peace and Reconciliation. His Sufferings were penal, and therefore, so far as he sustained that Punishment, which was due to, or from Sinners, they must be satisfactory to the Law, and Justice of God. Sin was imputed to him; The Curse of the Law was inflicted on him: And the Sword of divine Justice smote him. Which Things are a full Evidence, that in suffering he was punished: And if the Whole of that Penalty which Sin demerits, was endured by our Saviour, the certain Effect thereof, must be real, and perfect, Peace, or Reconciliation with God. If indeed he suffered only a Part of that Punishment, then complete Atonement is not made, he is but a partial Saviour, and was not made perfect through Sufferings. But this we can, by no Means, allow of, not only because it dreadfully affects our eternal Interest, but also because it impeaches divine Wisdom, and Justice, and reflects the greatest Dishonour on Christ himself.

III. The Gospel is a Report of Peace and Reconciliation. It is called The Gospel of Peace: And the Word of Reconciliation (Ephesians 6:15. 2 Corinthians 5:19.). Because it assures us, That Peace is made, by the Blood of the Cross of Christ. And that when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son. And that we are healed by the Stripes, i.e. the Sufferings of our Lord. It is not a Report of a Disposition, or Inclination in God, to be reconciled to sinful Men, on Account of the Suffering, and Death of Christ; but it is a clear, and glorious, and gracious Discovery, or Proclamation of real, and actual, and perfect Peace, or Reconciliation effected by his Passion and Death, The Divine Will to Reconciliation is not an Effect, but it is the Cause of Christ’s suffering for Sinners, in order to his making Peace for them; Hence we read, that the Apostles preached Peace by Jesus Christ (Acts 10:31.); not a Will or Disposition in God to a Reconciliation with offending Creatures, but real Peace, or actual Atonement, and Reconciliation. And therefore some Gentlemen must excuse me, if I say that they are very different Preacher, from the Apostles, and bring us another Gospel (which is not another, no Gospel of Christ at all) who represent God as only willing to be reconciled to Sinners, thro’ the Death of his Son) and not actually reconciled.

IV. The Distinction of a first, and second, or of a former, and a latter Reconciliation, the former as common to all Men, and the latter as peculiar to Believers upon Believing, which the Arminians urge, is an Invention of their ownf7. They suppose that which cannot in Justice be granted; viz. That Christ: by his Death obtained a conditional Grant, of Pardon and Life for all Men: This they call the first, or former Reconciliation; and thus much are they pleased to allow to the Merits of our Saviour; but not that he merited that Grace, which is necessary to enable Men to perform those Conditions, on which the latter Reconciliation is to be enjoyed, (and herein the Author of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, agrees with them, as to the larger Number of Men, for whom Christ died.) This I say is supposing what Justice forbids us to allow, in this Care, or in any Affair of this Nature. For it is manifestly unjust, to require an innocent Person to suffer for a Criminal, that Punishment which he deserves, and enjoy any Conditions on the Criminal, which may render his Impunity precarious, and for Want of the Performance of such Conditions, actually punish him; of this the Arminians are fully sensible; and therefore they deny that in a strict Sense Christ was punished. And so to must our Author also, if be will be consistent with himself. I should think this Gentleman can’t esteem it an unreasonable Request, if I ask the Favour of him, to tell us plainly, whether he apprehends Christ was really punished for Sinners in his Sufferings? Whether he endur’d the Whole, or a Part only, of that Penalty which was due to, or from them, for whom he died? And whether he thinks it agreeable to Justice to inflict the whole Punishment, due to Offenders, on a Surety for them, and punish them also.

I t seems clear to me, even to a Demonstration; that if our precious Saviour was punished in his Sufferings: That if he underwent the Whole of that Punishment, to which they were liable for whom he died: And if it cannot consist with Justice, and Righteousness, to inflict Penalty on a Surety, and on Offenders also: That all those for Right to Impunity, whom Christ suffered, have a Pardon, and Life; or that the Law and Justice of God are satisfied, that no Fury is, or can be in God, against those Persons; but that he is actually reconciled to them, or pacified towards them for all that they have done. Which is evidently inconsistent with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death; and therefore, I cannot but apprehend that it is particular; and limited to time.