Page images

SE R M O N IV. The true christian Doctrine of the

Satisfaction of Christ vindicated.

Acts XX. 28.
To feed the Church of God, which he hath

purchased with his own blood.

T HE whole verse runs thus, Take heed Serm.

therefore unto yourselves, and to all the IV. flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made in you overseers, &c. In a former discourse upon these words, after I had shewn how they were a manifest proof both of the divinity and satisfaction of the Son, I proceeded to a more particular consideration of the latter, in the fame method I had done in some other branches of this controversy with the Socinians ; by laying down their opinion in this matter from their most celebrated writers; and then coming to a right state of the question, which I think I have shewn they have mistaken ; and that for that reason all their arguments either conclude nothing at all, or elle infer nothing more than what we allow. I shall now proceed to the farther conside

SER M. ration of that great argument of theirs, upon

IV. which their whole cause depends ; namely, w that redeeming is spoke of Christ in the New

Testament, by the same figure that it is spoke
of God, and of Moses, and of Joshua, in the
Old ; it is metaphorical in the one, therefore
it is so in the other. But why is the word,
redeeming, metaphor when spoke of Christ ?
because he redeemed us without paying of a
price. The word autpów is from autpòv a price
of redemption, it signifies to redeem with a
price; and therefore when it is used of any
redemption without it, it is figure only. But
what a gross mistake this is
words of the old text ; which are used of
God, and Mofes, and Joshua, which have
not the least foundation for this reason of the
metaphor. The words used of them are
kapher 983 which is an original word of itself,
and among other significations hath this of
redeeming or delivering in the general ; and
from hence kapber 183 comes to signify a price
of redemption : And so it is with the word
gaal da redemit, from whence the participle
goel '183 is used for a Redeemer or Deliverer.
The word feban 321 indeed signifies to buy or
redeem with a price ; but it is a Chaldee word,
and not used, that I can find, but in those
few parts of the Old Testament written in
the Chaldee dialect. These, I say, are words
used in their first signification to express
saving, redeeming, delivering, either by a
price or otherwise ; and do not import any

thing of a price, more than they do of any Se R M. other means used to work the deliverance of IV. men : So then the metaphor is lost, and there. W fore all that they have said upon this head falls to the ground. However, to put the matter beyond all controversy, we will let this go with them; for the LXX do translate these words by autpów, which doth import redeeming by a price; and the same word is continued in the New Testament, and is a figurative expression in both ; and yet Crellius's consequence doth not follow (Crell. Resp. cap. 8. p. 173.) Necesse est ut etiam concedas quemadmodum nullum pretium Mofes Deo folvit, nec ei ullo pacto satisfecit; ita nec Chriftum id fecisse. And what he says a little after, making a comparison between Moses and Christ, that they agree in this, quòd neuter Deo verè fatisfecerit, neuter verum pretium folverit. By the words verè, and verum, they mean a proper and literal fatisfaction and price, which we do not contend for ; but, as I said before, do allow there is a figure in it. Now because this is the very pinch of the difficulty, and the ground of that mistake which runs through the whole Socinian controversy, I must distinguish here a little more nicely: And because there is such frequent mention made in them of metaphor and analogy; to make all that is said in this controversy more clear, it will be necessary once for all, to speak something concerning the nature of them; that people may apprehend distinctly what we mean when we use the words

[ocr errors] frequently; and ist, a' metaphor is the
IV. change of a word from its first or proper sig-

n ification, to some other. This change is
occafioned either from some likeness in that
other thing, as a crafty man is called a fox,
and this is pure metaphor and no analogy;
or it is from some equality or proportion it
bears to the first thing signified. In this there
are always four terms to be considered, as the
first is to the second, so the third is to the
fourth ; viz. as the head is to the body, so a
Prince is to the common-wealth. The word
head applied to a Prince is said to be meta-
phorical, but it is in truth analogy.
*** 2dly. Analogy is defined by Aristotle lootns
Tš aby8 (Eth. 5.) an equality or proportion of
reason, a fimilis ratio, by which he plainly
distinguishes it from metaphor, though his
commentators have confounded them. This
is likewise two-fold, the first doth not at all
differ from the last fort of metaphor, which
is most properly analogy.

The other is, when the same word is attri-
buted to two things equally, when it is proper
to them both, and figurative of neither. As
the word principle in respect of the heart of
man, and the foundation or chief fupport of
an houle. There is a ratio hmilis in the things,
and it would be the former analogy if we
knew which of the things it is first and chiefly
applied to.
. The first of these is pure metaphor, the
last is only analogy, but of very little use ;


the two middlemost are the same, and are Serm. called promiscuously sometimes one and some. IV. times the other ; it is either a metaphorical analogy, as Cajetan calls it, or an analogical metaphor. Et hujus, modi, says he, analogia Sacra Scriptura plena est, de Deo metaphoricè notitiam tradens. (Cajet. lib. de analogiâ.) And I may add not only of God, but of alí things relating to him, and to another world. Now, though these divine things are spoke of in this figurative manner, yet no one doubts but that they import something as true and real as those things which are expressed in terms strictly literal and proper ; there could be no proper words for what we have no immediate or proper conceptions. If we conceive celestial glory by light, we must express it so; and if we have no conception of God and his attributes, we must discourse of him in the language of men, and speak and think of him as we do of one another.

It may be said that the foundation of analogy is fimilitude or proportion, but there is no similitude or proportion between the things of another world and of this, and therefore no analogy; that there is no real fimilitude I grant, and all that can be inferred from this is, that the things of another world are not ipoke of in pure metaphor. But there is a proportion or parity of reason, a fimilis ratio, Or ισότης το λόγο, which is vifible in the instance I am now upon. As man is prevailed upon with a ransom, so God is prevailed upon


« PreviousContinue »