An Appendix

The preceding discourse (as has been declared) was written for the use of ordinary Christians; or such as might be in danger to be seduced, or any way entangled in their minds, by the late attempts against the truths pleaded for. For those to whom the dispensation of the Gospel is committed, are debtors both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise and to the unwise (Romans 1:14). It was therefore thought meet, to insist only on things necessary, and such as their faith is immediately concerned in; and not to immix therewithall, any such arguments or considerations, as might not, by reason of the terms wherein they are expressed, be obvious to their capacity and understanding. To plainness and perspicuity, brevity was also required, by such as judged this work necessary. That design we hope is answered, and now discharged in some useful measure. But yet because many of our arguments on the head of the satisfaction of Christ, depend upon the genuine signification and notion of the words and terms wherein the doctrine of it is delivered, which for the reasons before mentioned could not conveniently be discussed in the foregoing discourse, I shall here in some few instances, give an account of what farther confirmation the truth might receive, by a due explanation of them. And I shall mention here but few of them, because a large dissertation concerning them all, is intended in another way.

First, for the term of satisfaction it self; it is granted that in this matter it is not found in the Scripture. That is, it is not so [in non-Latin alphabet], or syllabically, but it is [in non-Latin alphabet], the thing it self intended is asserted in it, beyond all modest contradiction. Neither indeed is there in the Hebrew language any word that does adequately answer to it; no nor yet in the Greek. As it is used in this cause, [in non-Latin alphabet], which is properly sponsio or fide jussio, in its actual discharge, makes the nearest approach to it. [in non-Latin alphabet] is used to the same purpose. But there are words and phrases both in the Old Testament, and in the New, that are equipollent to it, and express the matter or thing intended by it: as in the Old are, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet]. This last word we render satisfaction (Numbers 35:32–33), where God denies that any compensation, sacred or civil, shall be received to free a murderer from the punishment due to him; which properly expresses what we intend. You shall admit of no satisfaction for the life of a murderer.

In the New Testament, [in non-Latin alphabet]; and the verbs [in non-Latin alphabet], are of the same importance; and some of them accommodated to express the thing intended, beyond that which has obtained in vulgar use. For that which we intended hereby, is, the voluntary obedience to death, and the passion or suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, whereby, and wherein he offered himself through the Eternal Spirit, for a propitiatory sacrifice, that he might fulfill the law, or answer all its universal postulata, and as our sponsor, undertaking our cause, when we were under the sentence of condemnation, underwent the punishment due to us from the justice of God, being transferred on him; whereby having made a perfect and absolute propitiation or atonement for our sins, he procured for us deliverance from death, and the curse, and a right to life everlasting. Now this is more properly expressed by some of the words before mentioned, than by that of satisfaction; which yet nevertheless as usually explained, is comprehensive, and no way unsuited to the matter intended by it.

In general, men by this word understand either reparationem offensae, or solutionem debiti: either reparation made for offence given to any; or the payment of a debt. Debitum is either oriminale, or pecuniarium; that is, either, the obnoxiousness of a man to punishment for crimes, or the guilt of them, in answer to that justice and law which he is necessarily liable and subject to; or, to a payment or compensation by, and of money, or what is valued by it; which last consideration, neither in it self, nor in any reasonings from an analogy to it, can in this matter have any proper place. Satisfaction is the effect of the doing or suffering, what is required for the answering of his charge against faults or sins, who has right, authority and power to require, exact, and inflict punishment for them. Some of the Schoolmen define it, by voluntaris radditio aequivalentis indebiti; of which more elsewhere. The true meaning of to satisfie, or make satisfaction, is tantum facere aut pati, quantum satis sit juste irato ad vindictam. This satisfaction is impleaded, as inconsistent with free remission of sins; how causlessly we have seen. It is so far from it, that it is necessary to make way for it, in case of a righteous law transgressed, and the public order of the universal governor and government of all, disturbed. And this God directs to (Leviticus 4:31): The Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. This atonement was a legal satisfaction; and it is by God himself premised to remission or pardon. And Paul prays Philemon to forgive Onesimus, though he took upon himself to make satisfaction for all the wrong or damage that he had sustained (Epistle v. 18, 19). And when God was displeased with the friends of Job he prescribes a way to them, or what they shall do, and what they shall get done for them, that they might be accepted and pardoned (Job 42:7, 8). The Lord said to Eliphaz, my wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, therefore take to you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for your selves a burnt offering, and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him I will accept; lest I deal with you after your folly. He plainly enjoins an atonement, that he might freely pardon them. And both these, namely satisfaction and pardon, with their order and consistency, were solemnly represented by the great institution of the sacrifice of the Scape Goat. For after all the sins of the people were put upon him, or the punishment of them transferred to him in a type and representation with quod in ejus caput-sit, the formal reason of all sacrifices propitiatory, he was sent away with them, denoting the oblation or forgiveness of sin, after a translation made of its punishment (Leviticus 16:21, 22). And whereas it is not expresly said, that that Goat suffered, or was slain, but was either [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Hircus[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a Goat sent away, or was sent to a Rock called Azazel in the Wilderness, as Vatablus and Oleaster, with some others think, (which is not probable, seeing though it might then be done while the people were in the Wilderness of Sinai; yet could not by reason of its distance, when the people were settled in Canaan be annually observed;) it was from the poverty of the types, whereof no one could fully represent that grace which it had particular respect to. What therefore was wanting in that Goat, was supplied in the other, which was slain as a sin offering, v. 11. 15.

Neither does it follow, that on the supposition of the satisfaction pleaded for, the freedom, pardon, or acquitment of the person originally guilty and liable to punishment, must immediately and ipso facto, ensue. It is not of the nature of every solution or satisfaction, that deliverance must ipso facto follow. And the reason of it is, because this satisfaction by a succedaneous substitution of one to undergo punishment for another, must be founded in a voluntary compact, and agreement, for there is required to it, a relaxation of the law, though not as to the punishment to be inflicted, yet as to the person to be punished. And it is otherwise in personal guilt, than in pecuniary debts. In these the debt it self is solely intended, the person only obliged with reference thereunto. In the other, the person is firstly and principally under the obligation. And therefore when a pecuniary debt is paid, by whoever it be paid, the obligation of the person himself to payment ceases ipso facto. But in things criminal, the guilty person himself, being firstly, immediately and intentionally under the obligation to punishment, when there is introduced by compact, a vicarious solution in the substitution of another to suffer, though he suffer the same absolutely which those should have done for whom he suffers; yet because of the acceptation of his person to suffer, which might have been refused, and could not be admitted, without some relaxation of the law, deliverance of the guilty persons cannot ensue ipso facto, but by the intervention of the terms fixed on in the covenant or agreement for an admittance of the substitution.

It appears from what has been spoken, that in this matter of Satisfaction, God is not considered as a Creditor, and sin as a debt, and the Law as an obligation to the payment of that Debt, and the Lord Christ as paying it; though these notions may have been used by some for the Illustration of the whole matter; and that not without countenance from sundry expressions in the Scripture to the same purpose; But God is considered as the infinitely holy and righteous Author of the Law, and Supreme Governor of all mankind, according to the Tenor and Sanction of it. Man is considered as a sinner, a transgressor of that Law, and thereby obnoxious and liable to the punishment constituted in it, and by it, answerably to the Justice and Holiness of its Author. The Substitution of Christ was merely voluntary on the part of God, and of himself, undertaking to be a Sponsor to answer for the sins of men, by undergoing the punishment due to them. That to this end there was a Relaxation of the Law, as to the persons that were to suffer, though not as to what was to be suffered. Without the former, the Substitution mentioned could not have been admitted. And on supposition of the latter, the suffering of Christ could not have had the nature of punishment properly so called. For punishment relates to the Justice and Righteousness in Government of him that exacts it, and inflicts it. And this the Justice of God does not, but by the Law. Nor could the Law be any way satisfied, or fulfilled by the suffering of Christ, if antecedently thereunto its obligation or power of obliging to the penalty constituted in its Sanction, to sin, was relaxed, dissolved, or dispensed withal. Nor was it agreeable to Justice, nor would the nature of the things themselves admit of it, that another punishment should be inflicted on Christ, than what we had deserved, nor could our sin be the impulsive cause of his death: nor could we have had any benefit thereby. And this may suffice to be added to what was spoken before, as to the nature of satisfaction, so far as the brevity of the discourse whereunto we are confined, will bear, or the use whereunto it is designed does require.

Secondly, the nature of the doctrine contended for, being declared and cleared, we may in one or two instances manifest how evidently it is revealed, and how fully it may be confirmed or vindicated. It is then in the Scripture declared, that Christ died for us; that he died for our sins, and that we are thereby delivered. This is the foundation of Christian Religion as such. Without the faith, and acknowledgement of it, we are not Christians. Neither is it in these general terms, at all denied by the Socinians. It remains therefore, that we consider, (1.) how this is revealed and affirmed in the Scripture: and (2.) what is the true meaning of the expressions and propositions wherein it is revealed and affirmed; for in them, as in sundry others, we affirm, that the satisfaction pleaded for, is contained.

1. Christ is said to die, to give himself, to be delivered, [in non-Latin alphabet] &c. for us, for his sheep, for the life of the world; for sinners (John 6:51, chapter 10:15, Romans 5:6, 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15, Galatians 2:20, Hebrews 2:9). Moreover he is said to die [in non-Latin alphabet], for sins (1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 1:4). The end whereof every where expressed in the Gospel, is, that we might be freed, delivered, and saved. These things as was said, are agreed to, and acknowledged.

2. The meaning and importance, we say of these expressions, is; that Christ died in our room, place, or stead, undergoing the death or punishment which we should have undergone in the way and manner before declared. And this is the satisfaction we plead for. It remains therefore, that from the Scripture, the nature of the things treated of, the proper signification and constant use of the expressions mentioned, the exemplification of them in the customs and usages of the nations of the world, we do evince and manifest, that what we have laid down, is the true and proper sense of the words, wherein this revelation of Christ's dying for us is expressed; so that they who deny Christ to have died for us in this sense, do indeed deny that he properly died for us at all; whatever benefits they grant, that by his death we may obtain.

First, we may consider the use of this expression in the Scripture, either indefinitely, or in particular instances.

Only we must take this along with us, that dying for sins and transgressions, being added to dying for sinners or persons, makes the substitution of one in the room and stead of another, more evident, than when the dying of one for another only, is mentioned. For whereas all predicates are regulated by their subjects, and it is ridiculous to say, that one dies in the stead of sins, the meaning can be no other, but the bearing or answering of the sins of the sinner, in whose stead any one dies. And this is in the Scripture declared to be the sense of that expression, as we shall see afterwards. Let us therefore consider some instances.

John 11:50. The words of Caiaphas's counsel are, [in non-Latin alphabet]: It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not: which is expressed again, chapter 18:14, [in non-Latin alphabet], perish for the people. Caiaphas feared, that if Christ were spared, the people would be destroyed by the Romans. The way to free them, he thought was by the destruction of Christ; him therefore he devoted to death, in lieu of the people. As He: *Unum pro multis dabitur Caput.* One head shall be given for many. Not unlike the speech of Otho the Emperor in Xiphilin, when he slew himself to preserve his army; for when they would have persuaded him to renew the war after the defeat of some of his forces, and offered to lay down their lives to secure him; he replied, that he would not; adding this reason, [in non-Latin alphabet]: It is far better, and more just that one should perish or die for all; than that many should perish for one; that is, one in the stead of many, that they may go free; or as another speaks; [in non-Latin alphabet]. Eurip. Let one be given up to die in the stead of all.

Joh. 13:38 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. They are the words of Saint Peter to Christ; I will lay down my life for you; To free you, I will expose my own head to danger, my life to death; that you may live and I die. It is plain that he intended the same thing with the celebrated [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of old, who exposed their own lives, ([〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]) for one another, such were Damon and Pythias, Orestes & Pylades, Nisur & Eurialus. From where is that saying of Seneca, Succurram perituro; sed ut ipse non peream; nisi si futurus ero magni hominis, aut magnae rei merces. I will relieve or succour one that is ready to perish; yet so as that I perish not my self; unless thereby, I be taken in lieu of some great man, or great matter. For a great man, a man of great worth and usefulness I could perish, or die in his stead, that he might live and go free.

We have a great example also of the importance of this expression in those words of David concerning Absolom (2 Samuel 18:33): [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Who will grant me to die, I for you, or in your stead; My Son Absolom. It was never doubted, but that David wished that he had died in the stead of his Son; and to have undergone the death which he did, to have preserved him alive. As to the same purpose, though in another sense, Mezentius in Virgil expresseth himself, when his Son Lausus interposing between him and danger in battle, was slain by Aeneas.

Have you O Son, fallen under the enemies hand in my stead; am I saved by your wounds; do I live by your death?

And the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] used by David does signify, when applied to persons, either a succession, or a substitution; still the coming of one into the place and room of another. When one succeeded to another in government, it is expressed by that word (2 Samuel 10:1; 1 Kings 7:7; chapter 19:16). In other cases it denotes a substitution. So Jehu tells his guard, that if any one of them let any of Baal's priests escape ([〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 2 Kings 10:24), his life should go in the stead of the life that he had suffered to escape.

And this answereth to [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the Greek, which is also used in this matter; and ever denotes either equality, contrariety, or substitution. The two former senses, can here have no place; the latter alone has. So it is said, that Archelaus reigned, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Matthew 2:22), in the room or stead of Herod his Father. So [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Matthew 5:38) is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. And this word also is used in expressing the death of Christ for us. He came, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Matthew 20:28), to give his life a ransom for many; that is, in their stead to die. So the words are used again (Mark 10:45). And both these notes of a succedaneous substitution are joined together (1 Timothy 2:6): [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. And this the Greeks call [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] — to buy any thing, to purchase or procure any thing, with the price of one's life. So Tigranes in Xenophon, when Cyrus asked him what he would give or do for the liberty of his wife whom he had taken prisoner; answered, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; I will purchase her liberty with my life, or the price of my soul. Whereon the woman being freed, affirmed afterwards, that she considered none in the company, but him who said, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; that he would purchase my liberty with his own life.

And these things are added on the occasion of the instances mentioned in the Scripture, from where it appears, that this expression of dying for another, has no other sense or meaning, but only dying instead of another, undergoing the death that he should undergo, that he might go free. And in this matter of Christ's dying for us, add that he so died for us, as that he also died for our sins, that is, either to bear their punishment, or to expiate their guilt, (for other sense the words cannot admit) and he that pretends to give any other sense of them than that contended for, which implies the whole of what lies in the doctrine of Satisfaction, erit mihi magnus Apollo; even he who was the author of all ambiguous oracles of old.

And this is the common sense of mori pro alio, and pati pro alio, or pro alio discrimen capitis subire; a substitution is still denoted by that expression, which sufficeth us in this whole cause; for we know both into whose room he came, and what they were to suffer. Thus Entellus killing and sacrificing an ox to Eryx in the stead of Dares whom he was ready to have slain, when he was taken from him, expresseth himself; Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Persolvo. He offered the ox, a better sacrifice, in the stead of Dares, taken from him. So Fratrem Pollux alternà morte redemit. And they speak so not only with respect to death, but where ever any thing of durance or suffering is intended. So the angry master in the Comedian, Verberibus Caesum te Dave in pistrinum dedam usque ad necem. Eâ lege atque omine, ut si inde te exemerim, ego pro te molam. He threatened his servant to cast him into prison to be macerated to death with labor, and that with this engagement, that if he ever let him out he would grind for him; that is, in his stead. Therefore without offering violence to the common means of understanding things among men, another sense cannot be affixed to these words.

The nature of the thing itself will admit of no other exposition than that given to it; and it has been manifoldly exemplified among the nations of the world. For suppose a man guilty of any crime, and on the account thereof, to be exposed to danger from God or man, in a way of justice, wrath, or vengeance, and when he is ready to be given up to suffering according to his demerit, another should tender himself to die for him that he might be freed, let an appeal be made to the common reason and understandings of all men, whether the intention of this his dying for another, be not, that he substitutes himself in his stead to undergo what he should have done, however the translation of punishment from one to another may be brought about and asserted. For at present we treat not of the right, but of the fact, or the thing itself. And to deny this to be the case as to the sufferings of Christ, is as far as I can understand, to subvert the whole Gospel.

Moreover, as was said, this has been variously exemplified among the nations of the world; whose actings in such cases, because they excellently shadow out the general notion of the death of Christ for others, for sinners; and are appealed to directly by the Apostle to this purpose (Romans 5:7, 8), I shall in a few instances reflect upon.

Not to insist on the voluntary surrogations of private persons, one into the room of another, mutually to undergo dangers and death for one another, as before mentioned, I shall only remember some public transactions in reference to communities, in nations, cities, or armies. Nothing is more celebrated among the ancients than this; that when they supposed themselves in danger, from the anger and displeasure of their gods, by reason of any guilt or crimes among them, some one person should either devote himself, or be devoted by the people, to die for them, and therein to be made as it were an expiatory sacrifice. For where sin is the cause, and God is the object respected, the making of satisfaction by undergoing punishment, and expiating of sin by a propitiatory sacrifice, are but various expressions of the same thing. Now those who so devoted themselves, as was said, to die in the stead of others, or to expiate their sins, and turn away the anger of the god they feared by their death, designed two things in what they did. First, that the evils which were impendent on the people and feared, might fall on themselves, so that the people might go free. Secondly, that all good things which themselves desired, might be conferred on the people; which things have a notable shadow in them of the great expiatory sacrifice concerning which we treat, and expound the expressions wherein it is declared. The instance of the Decii, is known; of whom the poet, Plebeiae Deciorum animae, plebeia fuerunt Nomina; pro totis legionibus [illegible], & pro Omnibus auxiliis, atque omni plehe Latins. Sufficiunt Diis infernis.

The two Decii, father and son, in imminent dangers of the people, devoted themselves, at several times, to death and destruction. And says he; sufficiunt Diis infernis; they satisfied for the whole people; adding the reason from where so it might be; Pluris enim Decii quam qui servantur ab illis.

They were more to be valued, than all that were saved by them. And the great historian does excellently describe both the actions, and expectations of the one and the other in what they did. The father, when the Roman army commanded by himself and Titus M[illegible]nlius, was near a total ruin by the Latines, called for the public priest, and caused him with the usual solemn ceremonies, to devote him to death, for the deliverance and safety of the army: after which making his requests to his gods, (dii quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque) the gods that had power over them and their adversaries, as he supposed, he cast himself into death by the swords of the enemy. Conspectus ab utraque acie aliquanto augustior humano visu, sicut coelo missus, piaculum omnis Deorum irae, qui pestem ab suis aversam in hostes ferret. He was looked on by both armies, as one more august than a man, as one sent from Heaven, to be a piacular sacrifice; to appease the anger of the gods, and to transfer destruction from their own army to the enemies (Liv. Hist. 8). His son in like manner in a great and dangerous battle against the Galls and Samnites; wherein he commanded in chief, devoting himself as his father had done, added to the former solemn deprecations; prae se, agere sese, formidinem ac fugam, caedemque ac cruorem, coelestium, infernorum iras, lib. 11. That he carried away before him, (from those for whom he devoted himself) fear and flight, slaughter and blood, the anger of the celestial and infernal gods. And as they did in this devoting of themselves design, averuncare malum, deûm iras, lustrare p[illegible]pulum, aut exercitum, piaculum fieri or [illegible], expiare crimina, scelus, reatum, or to remove all evil from others by taking it on themselves in their stead; so also they thought they might, and intended in what they did, to covenant and contract for the good things they desired. So did these Decii, and so is Menaeceus reported to have done, when he devoted himself for the city of Thebes in danger to be destroyed by the Argives. So Papinius introduces him treating his gods, Armorum superi, tuque, ô qui funere tanto Indulges mihi Phoebe mori, date gaudia Thebis, Quae pepegi, & toto quae sanguine prodigus emi.

He reckoned that he had not only repelled all death and danger from Thebes, by his own, but that he had purchased joy, in peace and liberty for the people.

And where there was none in public calamities, that did voluntarily devote themselves, the people were wont to take some obnoxious person, to make him execrable, and to lay on him according to their superstition, all the wrath of their gods, and so give him up to destruction. Such the Apostle alludes to (Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 4:9, 13). So the Massilians were wont to expiate their city by taking a person devoted, imprecating on his head all the evil that the city was obnoxious to, casting him into the sea with these words, [illegible] be you our expiatory sacrifice; to which purpose were the solemn words that many used in their expiatory sacrifices; as Herodotus testifies of the Aegyptians, bringing their offerings, says he, [illegible]; they laid these imprecations on their heads; that if any evil were happening towards the sacrificer, or all Egypt, let it be all turned and laid on this devoted head.

And the persons whom they thus dealt withall, and made execrate, were commonly of the vilest of the people, or such as had rendered themselves detestable by their own crimes; from where was the complaint of the Mother of M[illegible]naeceus upon her Sons devoting himself, Lustralemne feris, ego te puer inclyte Thebis, D[illegible]votumque caput, vilis seu mater alebam?

I have recounted these instances to evince the common intention, sense, and understanding of that expression, of one dying for another; and to manifest by examples, what is the sense of mankind, about any ones being devoted and substituted in the room of others, to deliver them from death and danger; the consideration whereof, added to the constant use of the words mentioned, in the Scripture, is sufficient to find and confirm this conclusion.

That whereas it is frequently affirmed, in the Scripture, that Christ dyed for us, and for our sins, &c. to deny that he dyed and suffered in our stead, undergoing the death whereunto we were obnoxious, and the punishment due to our sins, is; if we respect in what we say or believe the constant use of those words in the Scripture, the nature of the thing it self concerning which they are used, the uncontrolled use of that expression in all sorts of writers, in expressing the same thing, which the instances and examples of its meaning and intention among the nations of the world, is to deny that he dyed for us at all.

Neither will his dying for our good or advantage only, in what way or sense soever, answer or make good, or true, the assertion of his dying for us, and our sins. And this is evident in the death of the Apostles and Martyrs; they all dyed for our good; our advantage and benefit was one end of their sufferings, in the will and appointment of God; and yet it cannot be said, that they dyed for us, or our sins.

And if Christ dyed only for our good, though in a more effectual manner than they did, yet this altereth not the kind of his dying for us; nor can he from there be said properly, according to the only due sense of that expression, so to do.

I shall in this brief and hasty discourse, add only one consideration more about the death of Christ to confirm the truth pleaded for. And that is that he is said in dying for sinners, to bear their sins (Isaiah 53:11), he shall bear their iniquities, v. 12, he bare the sins of many; explained, v. 5, he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him (1 Peter 2:24), who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, &c.

This expression is purely sacred. It occurreth not directly in other authors, though the sense of it in other words do frequently. They call it luere peccata; that is, delictorum supplicium ferre; to bear the punishment of sins. The meaning therefore of this phrase of speech, is to be taken from the Scripture alone, and principally from the Old Testament, where it is originally used; and from where it is tranferred into the New Testament in the same sense, and no other. Let us consider some of the places.

Isaiah 53:11. [in non-Latin alphabet] The same word [in non-Latin alphabet] is used, vers. 4. [in non-Latin alphabet] And our griefs he has born them. The word signifies, properly to bear a weight or a burden, as a man bears it on his shoulders; bajulo, porto. And it is never used with respect to sin, but openly and plainly it signifies the undergoing of the punishment due to it; so it occurrs directly to our purpose (Lamentations 5:7), [in non-Latin alphabet] Our Fathers have sinned and are not; and we have born their iniquities; the punishment due to their sins. And why a new sense should be forged for these words, when they are spoken concerning Christ, who can give a just reason?

Again [in non-Latin alphabet] is used to the same purpose. [in non-Latin alphabet] vers. 12. And he bear the sin of many. [in non-Latin alphabet] is often used with respect to sin; sometimes with reference to Gods actings about it, and sometimes with reference to mens concerns in it. In the first way, or when it denotes an act of God, it signifies to lift up, to take away, or pardon sin; and leaves the word [in non-Latin alphabet] where with it is joyned under its first signification, of iniquity; or the guilt of sin, with respect to punishment ensuing as its consequent. For God pardoning the guilt of sin, the removal of the punishment does necessarily ensue; guilt containing an obligation to punishment. In the latter way, as it respects men or sinners, it constantly denotes the bearing of the punishment of sin, and gives that sense to [in non-Latin alphabet], with respect to the guilt of sin as its cause. And hence ariseth the ambiguity of those words of Cain (Genesis 14:13), [in non-Latin alphabet], if [in non-Latin alphabet] denotes an act of God, if the words be spoken with reference in the first place to any acting of his towards Cain, [in non-Latin alphabet] retains the sense of iniquity, and the words are rightly rendered, My sin is greater than to be forgiven. If it respect Cain himself firstly, [in non-Latin alphabet] assumes the signification of punishment, and the words are to be rendred; My punishment is greater than I can bear, or is to be born by me.

This I say is the constant sense of this expression, nor can any instance to the contrary be produced. Some may be mentioned in the confirmation of it. Numbers 14:33. Your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, [in non-Latin alphabet] and shall bear your whoredoms, v. 34. [in non-Latin alphabet] You shall bear your iniquities forty years; that is, the punishment due to your whoredoms and iniquities, according to Gods providential dealing with them at that time. Leviticus 19:8. He that eateth it, [in non-Latin alphabet] shall bear his iniquities, How? [in non-Latin alphabet] that soul shall be cut off. To be cut off for sin, by the punishment of it, and for its guilt, is to bear iniquity. So Chap. 20:16, 17, 18, for a man to bear his iniquity, and to be killed, slain, or put to death for it, are the same.

Ezekiel 18:20. [in non-Latin alphabet] [in non-Latin alphabet]; the soul that sinneth it shall dye; the Son shall not bear the sin of the Father. To bear sin, and to dye for sin, are the same. More instances might be added, all uniformly speaking the same sense of the words.

And as this sense is sufficiently indeed invincibly established by the invariable use of that expression in the Scripture, so the manner whereby it is affirmed that the Lord Christ bare our iniquities, sets it absolutely free from all danger by opposition. For he bare our iniquities when [in non-Latin alphabet] the Lord made to meet on him, or laid on him, the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6), which words the LXX. render, [in non-Latin alphabet] [in non-Latin alphabet], The Lord gave him up, or delivered him to our sins. That is, to be punished for them; for other sense the words can have none. He made him sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), so he bore our sins (Isaiah 53:11). How? In his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), that when he was, and in his being stricken, smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, slain, so was the chastisement of our peace upon him.

Therefore to deny that the Lord Christ in his death and suffering for us, underwent the punishment due to our sins, what we had deserved, that we might be delivered, as it everts the great foundation of the Gospel, so by an open perverting of the plain words of the Scripture, because not suited in their sense and importance to the vain imaginations of men, it gives no small countenance to infidelity and atheism.

FINIS.