also written concerning God (Exod. xxxiv. 7; Numb. xiv. 18), according to the Hebrew text, that "he keepeth mercy for thousands, and BEARETH iniquity and sins," [in the English translation, "forgiving iniquity and transgression."] And Matthew expressly states (chap. viii. ver. 17), that when Christ healed many diseases, that "was fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, saying (Is. liii. 4), Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." God, however, gave no one satisfaction for sins-neither did Christ receive upon himself and bear the diseases of men, but bore them away from them. In the same sense also Christ has borne away from us all our sins, and the penalties of them, just as if he had conveyed them to a far distant region: as the Scripture likewise declares (John i. 29), he was "the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world:" and (Heb. ix. 28) that he " was once offered to bear [or take away] the sins of many 58.'

What

58 Grotius excellently remarks on this passage (1 Peter ii. 24): Est hic μ¤à¤‡, non enim proprie Christus, cum crucifigeretur, VITIA NOSTRA ABSTULIT, sed causas dedit per quas auferrentur. Nam crux Christi fundamentum est predicationis; predicatio vero pœnitentiæ, pœnitentia vero aufert vitia."There is here a metalepsis; for literally speaking Christ did not, when he was crucified, take away our sins-but furnished the means whereby they might be removed. For the cross of Christ is the foundation of preaching-preaching of penitence, and penitence takes away sin." Other similar observations of this writer may be found in his Annotations on Matth. xx. 28; John i. 29; Acts xx. 28; Rom. iv. 25; Ephes. i. 7; Rev. i. 5: and also in others of his works which he wrote after Crellius had published his admirable reply to Grotius's book against Socinus on Satisfaction. Compare also with what

What answer do you make to those testimonies (such as Rom. iii. 24) which declare that we are redeemed by Christ?

That the doctrine of satisfaction cannot be inferred from the word redemption, is evident from hence, that it is affirmed of God himself, both in the Old and in the New Testament, that he redeemed his people out of Egypt; that he sent redemption to his people; that he redeemed Abraham and David: and likewise of Moses, that he was a redeemer (deliverer): and it is stated moreover that we are redeemed from our iniquities, or from our vain conversation. (Isaiah xxix. 22; Psalm xxxi. 5; cxi. 9; Acts vii. 35; Titus ii. 14; 1 Peter i. 18; Gal. iii. 13.) But it is certain that neither God nor Moses gave satisfaction to any one: nor can our iniquities or vain conversation be said to be satisfied. Let it be added, that God himself has redeemed us, and given his most beloved son for us, without however paying any one any thing for us; and that Christ has bought us to God in order that we might thenceforth be his servants.

But what do you conceive to be the meaning of

is here advanced concerning the death of Christ, what is said on this subject in the Confession of Faith of the Polish Churches. Consult also Curcellæus, Instit. lib. v. cap. 8 & 19; and his dissertation against Maresius, Diss. i. de voc. Trin. &c. § 30, 31. Besides, the death of Christ may justly be said to have procured our salvation-in this respect alone,-that by this event, and his obedience to God the Father, he was invested with supreme power over all things, and thus obtained a full right to forgive our sins and bless us with eternal life. He may therefore justly be said to have redeemed and purchased us with his blood.-B. WISSOWATIUS.

P

the

the declaration,-that Christ has redeemed us and given himself a ransom for us?

The term REDEMPTION, in most passages of Scripture, means simply LIBERATION; but by a more extended figure, it is put for that liberation for effecting which a certain price is paid. And it is said of the death of Christ that he has liberated us by it, because by means of it we have obtained our freedom both from our sins themselves, that we no longer serve them; and also from the punishment of them, that being snatched from the jaws of eternal death we may live for ever.

But why is this deliverance expressed by the term redemption?

Because there is a very great similarity between our deliverance and a redemption properly so called. For as in a proper redemption there must be a captive, the person who detains the captive, the redeemer, and lastly, the ransom, or price of the redemption; so also in our deliverance, if we speak of our sins themselves, man is the captive-they who detain him are sin, the world, the devil, and death: the redeemer of the captive are God and Christ; and the ransom, or price of the redemption, is Christ, or his soul paid by God and by Christ himself. The only difference lies here, that in this deliverance of us from our sins themselves, no one receives any thing under the name of ransom, which must always happen in a redemption properly so called. But if we speak of our deliverance from the punishment of our sins, we owe this to God, Christ having delivered us from it

when,

when, in compliance with the will of God, he gave himself up to death for us, and through his own blood entered into the heavenly place: which obedience of his son unto death, and the death of the cross, God accepted as an offering of all the most agreeable to him. But this is not to be understood nevertheless as importing that God, literally speaking, had received the full payment of our debts; since Christ was a victim of his own, provided by himself, as was also the case in the yearly sacrifice (the type of the sacrifice of Christ); and owed every thing to God through himself, and in his own name; and although his obedience was the highest and most perfect of any, yet he received an incomparably greater reward for it. Wherefore this ought to be ascribed to the unbounded grace and bounty of God; because he not only did not receive any part of what we owed to him, and because he not only forgave us all our debts; but also because he gave a victim of his own, and that his only-begotten and best-beloved son, that lamb without blemish, for us and our sins, not that he might pay himself any thing for us (for this would be a fictitious not a real payment), but might create for us so much greater and more certain a right to pardon and eternal life, and might bind himself by such a pledge to confer this upon us; and might also convert us to himself, and bless us with the other signal benefits of which we stood in need.

Why does the Holy Spirit use a metaphorical rather than a literal term?

Because this metaphorical term expresses more ele

gantly the expense which God and Christ bestowed on our deliverance, and therefore the love of both towards us for a deliverance may possibly be accomplished without love, and particularly without great love; but the deliverance which is procured at the expense not of money but "much more of his own blood," could not be effected without the highest love. What say you to these things, that Christ is the mediator between God and men, and the mediator of the New Covenant? (Heb. xii. 24; viii. 6; ix. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 5.)

Since we read that Moses was a Mediator (that is, between God and the people of Israel, and of the former Covenant), and as it is certain that he made no satisfaction to God for the sins of the people,it cannot be inferred from the circumstance of Christ's being a mediator between God and men, that he made the alleged satisfaction for the sins of all men.

Why then does the Scripture give to Christ the title of Mediator?

When Christ is called a Mediator, with the word Covenant subjoined, it is to be understood, that in es tablishing the New Covenant he was the medium between God and men, in proclaiming to them the perfect will of God, in confirming it, and at length sealing it with his blood. But when Paul, while about

proving that "God will and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," says, "For there is one God," that is the Creator and Lord of all men, "and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," who, because he is

have all men to be saved,

a man,