Christ's

satisfaction.

faction. It would carry us to far too enumerate all: let us consider some of the principal. "If they who were enemies to God were reconciled by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, they should be saved by his life," Rom. v. 10. For whom God, not sparing his own Son, gave him up unto death, "with him freely he gives them all things," Rom. viii. 32. We, for whom Christ died, may boldly say, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" &c. ver. 33, 34. They whom Christ" redeemed from the curse of the law," are not under the curse, but "the blessing of Abraham cometh upon them," Gal. iii. 13, 14. But this is not true of all and every one, but of elect believers only, that they are saved by the life of Christ; that with Christ God freely gives them all things; that none can lay any thing to their charge, or bring an accusation against them; that upon them is come the blessing of Abraham. Therefore, they alone are the persons of whom the foregoing things may be truly affirmed.

for those who

perish is

altogether

A satisfaction XXXIII. That fictious satisfaction for the reprobate, and those who perish, is altogether a vain and useless useless. thing. For whom does it profit? Not certainly God, who by no act can be rendered happier than he is. Not Christ himself, who, as he never seeks them, so he never receives them, for his peculiar property; and neither is he enriched by possessing them, though supposed to have purchased them at a dear rate. Not believers, who, content with their portion in God and in Christ, and fully redeemed by Christ, enjoy a happiness in every respect complete. In fine, not those that perish, who are constrained to satisfy in their own persons for their sins to the utmost farthing. But to affirm the satisfaction of Christ to be a vain and useless thing, is absurd, and borders on blasphemy. Remigius, formerly bishop of Lyons, said extremely well, when discoursing at large on this controverted point, "The blood of Christ is a great price; such a price can, in no respect, be vain and ineffectual, but rather is filled with the superabundant advantage arising from those blessings for which it was paid." See Forbes. Instruct. Hist. lib. viii. c. xvi.

Had Christ satisfied for them, he

would also

have merited

severance

for them.

repro

XXXIV. Nor are we to say, that therefore the bate have no benefit by the satisfaction of Christ, because the condition of faith and perseverance which the faith and per- reprobate do not perform, is necessary to that purpose. For, first, it is not true, that faith and perseverance are prerequisite conditions, before a person can have any of the fruits of Christ's satisfaction. For regeneration itself, and effectual calling, which go before actual faith; justification, adoption, and sanctification, which precede final perseverance in the faith, are the fruits of Christ's most excellent satisfaction.

And then, from the want of faith and perseverance in those that perish, we have a most effectual proof, that the blood of the new covenant was not shed for them; for by that Christ has merited for his people the continuance of the new life in faith and love; seeing he is "the Mediator of that better covenant, which was established upon better promises," Heb. viii. 6. But these promises are, sanctification, ver. 10: "I will put my laws into their mind;" and the continuance thereof, "I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." For in the new covenant, to be a God to any is to be an everlasting Saviour, as we gather from Matt. xxii. 32, and which the opposition made between the new and the old covenant, in like manner, shows, Heb. viii. 8, 9. These promises, being graciously and actually conferred on the elect, in virtue of Christ's satisfaction, would have certainly been conferred on the rest of mankind, had Christ equally satisfied for them.

bate unwor

XXXV. Nay, the satisfaction of Christ for the repro- Satisfaction bate had not only been useless, but highly unworthy for the reproboth of God and of Christ. Unworthy of the wisdom, thy of God goodness, and justice of God, to exact and receive satis- and of Christ. faction from his most beloved Son for those whom he neither gave nor wanted to give his Son, and whom he decreed to consign to everlasting confinement, to suffer in their own persons according to the demerit of their crimes. Unworthy of Christ, to give his blood a price of redemption for those whom he had not in charge to redeem. And if we may speak freely, this also, in some respect, would be for Christ to account the blood of the new covenant, or the new covenant itself, in which he was sanctified, a common or unholy thing.

XXXVI. I should now refute the arguments of those Conclusion. on the other side of the question; but this has been done at large, and with so much judgment, by very learned men, that we can scarce make any addition. The very accurate dissertation of Gomarus on this head, which is inserted in his commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians, may especially be

consulted.

240

The cove

the Father

and Christ, confirmed

and by cer

CHAPTER X.

After what manner Christ used the Sacraments.

I. Thus far we have at large treated of those things nant between that relate to the covenant between Christ and the Father; and might seem to have completely finished both by oath, that subject, were it not proper to add something contain symbols. cerning the Sacraments by which that covenant was confirmed. The apostle has observed, Heb. vii. 20, 21, that "not without an oath" Christ was made priest and surety of a better testament. As this manifested the stability of the covenant, and the immutability of God's counsel; so it likewise contributed to the full assurance of Christ the Mediator. It moreover pleased God to confirm that covenant by certain external symbols, and indeed the very same by which the covenant of grace was sealed to believers, under the different dispensations of it. We have already hinted something on this subject, which we are now to enlarge upon more distinctly.

Christ a par

cumcision,

and

II. It is evident, that the Lord Jesus was circumtaker of cir- cised on the eighth day from his birth, Luke ii. 21, that the passover, he kept the passover with his disciples, Luke xxii. 8, 11, and was baptized by John, Matt. iii. 13. Though the evangelists do not, indeed, expressly assert that he also partook of the holy supper; yet they relate what, we think, may make it more than probable he did.

baptism,

the supper.

By the

Jewish cus

by Christ,

none of the guests allow

ed to eat or taste before

the master of

III. 1st, It is certain that our Lord, in the institutoms imitated tion and use of the mystical supper, borrowed most of the rites from the Jewish passover. The very learned Joseph Scaliger, Ludovicus Capellus, and most particularly Buxtorf in a peculiar dissertation, have made the family. this as clear as noon-day. Thus our Lord took the bread and cup distinctly, separately blessed them both, and gave them to his disciples, after the Jewish manner. It was, besides, a custom among the Jews for the master of the family to eat first of the bread after blessing: to this purpose Maimonides in Hilcot Berachot, c. vii., says, "The guests were not to eat or taste any thing, till he who broke had tasted first." Nor was it permitted, at festivals and solemn feasts, for any of the guests to drink of the cup, till after the master of the family had done it first, according to an express passage quoted by Buxtorf

from the Talmud, where it is said "to be an excellent precept, that he who sanctifies or blesses should first taste, and after, all the guests, sitting down, tasted; every one took a draught." See the above dissertation, §. 76. In this manner Christ acted at the paschal supper, Luke xxii. 15, 17; and why not so at this new mystical supper?

Christ's drinkthe cup

hinted, Matt.

xxvi. 29.

IV. 2dly, This observation will be more cogent if we consider, that the same phraseology used by Christ of the paschal cup, Luke xxii. 18, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come," is also, according to Matt. xxvi. 29, made use of concerning the cup at the holy supper. Whence we infer, that then Christ likewise drank of the cup with his disciples.

Christ ought the supper as baptism.

to partake of

well as of

union of

believers

V. 3dly, We may add, that no reason can be assigned, why Christ should not partake of the supper, as he did of baptism, and consecrate, in his own person, these two Sacraments of the New Testament. VI. 4thly, Nay, this seems requisite from the mutual As what the union between Christ and believers, and that inter- Christ and course of intimate familiarity which, among other things, requireth. was sealed in this mystical feast, and which our Lord himself has very elegantly proposed, under the similitude of a mutual supper, Rev. iii. 20:1 will sup with him, and he with me." VII. This also was the opinion of the Fathers: As of Jerome in Epist. ad Hedibiam quest. 2: "Not by the fathers Moses, but the Lord Jesus gave us the true bread: he himself at once the entertainer and the entertainment; the eater and the food." Of Augustine, de Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. c. iii: "And having first tasted the Sacrament of his body and blood, he signified his meaning." Of Chrysostom, Homil. 83, in Matt. "He also drinks thereof, lest, on hearing his words, they should say, And do we then drink blood and eat flesh? And therefore, in order to prevent this, he himself sets them an example," &c.

:

Authorized

of the church.

the Sacraof Christ's

ments a part

duty and of

VIII. This use of the Sacraments was not a matter The use of of choice to Christ, but a part of his righteousness, and a duty incumbent upon him. For he himself declared, when John refused to baptize him, "Suffer it to be so his righteousnow; for thus πρéπov koτív, it becometh us, to fulfil ness. Matt. iii. 15, all righteousness," Matt. iii. 15. Where by righteous- explained. ness he means the obedience due to the command of God, and it became both John and Christ to fulfil all, and consequently this part. The part of Christ was to present himself to be baptized by John, and John's duty not to deny Christ in this; thus it became both of them: nor was it a matter of mere fitness in this place, as if baptism was a thing unnecessary; (it being, as I have already said, a part of the righteousness which Christ was

to fulfil) but it signified every duty incumbent, and the performance of every such duty is an ornament to the saints, and renders them beautiful in the eyes of God: as the Psalmist sings, Ps. xciii. 5: "Holiness ( is the beauty of) becometh thine house, (or those that frequent thy house).' In this sense Paul said, Eph. v. 3, "as Tρéret, becometh, saints; and 1 Tim, ii. 10, TOETE, which becometh, women professing godliness; and Heb. ii. 10, for TOETTE, it became him." The rectitude, beauty, or comeliness of God, who is adorned with rectitude and beauty,

, Ps. lxxxix. 8, (which rectitude he can neither deny, nor act contrary to) required, that the Captain of our salvation should be made perfect by sufferings; "such a High Priest became us," Heb. vii. 26. From which it appears, that the baptism of Christ was a part of his duty, by which he rendered himself comely both in the eyes of God and men.

Were besides

seals to him of the covenant.

IX. But besides this, the Sacraments which Christ made use of had still a further respect. They are not only to be considered as acts of obedience, enjoined by the law, but also as signs and seals of the covenant, whereby the mutual engagements of the contracting parties are sealed. For God did not institute the Sacraments with a view that any should place virtue and holiness in the bare exercise of those acts, but that they might be scals of spiritual things. Nor does he make a proper use of the Sacraments, who does not apply them to that end. But doubtless Christ made use of these institutions agreeably to the intention of God who appointed them, as was proper to be done by that most perfect and excellent Servant, in whom God was well pleased. There was, therefore, in the use of the Sacraments, a confirmation of the promises, both of those made by the Father to the Son, and by the Son to the Father.

Promises made to Christ either

as man or as

X. But then, the promises made to Christ were of various kinds some were made to him as a particular man, born holy, who was to be justified and made Mediator. happy, upon constantly persevering in the course of his commenced purity. For Christ was indeed a holy creature; but to make a holy creature happy, who preserves its holiness untainted, is so agreeable to the divine goodness, that it is scarce, if at all, possible it could be otherwise, as we have proved at large, book I. chap. IV. sect. XII. seq. And these promises are legal, and belong to the Covenant of Works. But there were other promises made to him as surety and mediator, by which his person, and his office, and works, as Mediator, should be acceptable to God, and were successful: and a twofold effect was certainly to ensue, one for himself, viz. a most excellent degree of glory; the other, for the elect who were to be united to him, namely, their salvation. And these last are properly the