them with the power of carrying all these things into execution.

But how has the blood or the death of Christ con

firmed to us the will of God?

In two ways.

First, because he did not suffer himself to be deterred from inculcating his doctrine even by the most painful death; but particularly, because he ratified the New Covenant by his blood, and confirmed the New Testament by his death (Heb. xiii. 20). Hence the blood of Christ is called "the blood of the New Testament, which speaketh better things than that of Abel" (Matth. xxvi. 28; Heb. xii. 24). And Christ is himself called "the true and faithful witness" (Rev. i. 5, iii. 14). Secondly, because through his death he was led to his resurrection, from which principally arises the confirmation of the divine will, and the most certain persuasion of our resurrection and the obtaining of eternal life.

Explain more at large-in what manner we are assured by the resurrection of Christ, and consequently by his death, of our own resurrection and eternal life?

First, we are assured by the death and resurrection of Christ, of our own resurrection, because we behold placed before our view, in the example of Christ, what is promised in his doctrine—that they who serve God shall be delivered from every kind of death, however violent. Secondly, since Christ was thus raised in order that he might obtain supreme authority over all

things,

things, every cause of doubt concerning our salvation has been taken away.

But in what manner ?

upon

In two ways. First, because we perceive a certain beginning of the fulfilment of God's promises, particularly as God has made an especial promise that Christ himself should deliver us from death, and confer us eternal life. Secondly, because we see that the power of fulfilling the divine promises made to us is placed in the hands of him who is not ashamed to call us brethren, and who so greatly loved us,-though until then wicked, and enemies to him,-that, with a view to our everlasting salvation; he submitted to a death as cruel as it was infamous; who endured in himself all those afflictions to which we must be exposed if we would obey him; and can therefore commiserate us, and be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, as I have before shown. Having then our salvation in his hands, how should he not bestow it upon us, especially as the conferring of it is connected with the highest glory both of himself and of his Father?

I observe then from hence, that in the business of our salvation more depends upon the resurrection.than upon the death of Christ?

Certainly, in as much as the death of Christ would have been useless and inefficacious, unless it had been followed by his resurrection (which indeed, in respect to the divine decrees, could not but have happened), which also, in a wonderful manner,

gave force to his death, and rendered it effectual in the business of our salvation. Hence Paul writes(1 Cor. xv. 17), " If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins." That is to say, as the same apostle intimates Romans iv. 25, connecting together the effects of his death and of his resurrection, Christ "was delivered for our offences, and was raised for our justification." And again

(Rom. viii. 33, 34), "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

But why do the Scriptures so often ascribe all these things to the death of Christ?

Because the death of Christ the Son of God, made effective, as I have stated, by his resurrection (which principally declared him to be the Son of God), had of itself, as I have shown, great and extraordinary power in effecting our salvation. And, in the next place, because it was the way to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ: for, from the nature of the thing, his death was necessary to the former, and, through the divine will and purpose, was essential to the latter. Lastly, because of all the things done by God and Christ with a view to our salvation, the death of Christ was the most difficult work, and the most evident proof of the love of God and of Christ towards us.

But did not Christ die also, in order, properly speaking, to purchase our salvation, and literally to pay the debt of our sins?

Although

Although Christians at this time commonly so believe, yet this notion is false, erroneous, and exceedingly pernicious; since they conceive that Christ suffered an equivalent punishment for our sins, and by the price of his obedience exactly compensated our disobedience. There is no doubt, however, but that Christ so satisfied God by his obedience, as that he completely fulfilled the whole of his will, and by his obedience obtained, through the grace of God, for all of us who believe in him, the remission of our sins, and eternal salvation.

How do you make it

appear that the common no

tion is false and erroneous?

Not only because the Scriptures are silent concerning it, but also because it is repugnant to the Scriptures and to right reason.

Prove this, in order.

That nothing concerning it is to be found in the Scriptures appears from hence; that they who maintain this opinion never adduce explicit texts of Scripture in proof of it, but string together certain inferences by which they endeavour to maintain their assertions. But, besides that a matter of this kind, whereon they themselves conceive the whole business of salvation to turn, ought certainly to be demonstrated not by inferences alone but by clear testimonies of Scripture, it might easily be shown that these inferences have no force whatever otherwise, inferences which necessarily spring from the Scriptures, I readily admit.

How is this opinion repugnant to the Scriptures? Because the Scriptures every where testify that

God

God forgives men their sins freely, and especially under the New Covenant (2 Cor. v. 19; Rom. iii. 24, 25; Matth. xviii. 23, &c.) But to a free forgiveness nothing is more opposite than such a satisfaction as they contend for, and the payment of an equivalent price. For where a creditor is satisfied, either by the debtor himself, or by another person on the debtor's behalf, it cannot with truth be said of him that he freely forgives the debt.

How is this repugnant to reason?

This is evident from hence; that it would follow that Christ, if he has satisfied God for our sins, has submitted to eternal death; since it appears that the penalty which men had incurred by their offences was eternal death; not to say that one death, though it were eternal in duration,-much less one so short,could not of itself be equal to innumerable eternal deaths. For if you say that the death of Christ, because he was a God infinite in nature, was equal to the infinite deaths of the infinite race of men, besides that I have already refuted this opinion concerning the nature of Christ,-it would follow that God's infinite nature itself suffered death. But as death cannot any way belong to the infinity of the divine nature, so neither, literally speaking (as must necessarily be done here where we are treating of a real compensation and payment), can the infinity of the divine nature any way belong to death. In the next place, it would follow that there was no necessity that Christ should endure such sufferings, and so dreadful a

death;