Chapter XXX.

The satisfaction of Christ on the consideration of his death being a punishment farther evinced, and vindicated from the exceptions of Smalcius.

III. The third consideration of the death of Christ was of it as it was penal, as therein he underwent punishment for us, or that punishment which for sin was due to us. Thence directly is it said to be satisfactory. About the word itself we do not contend, nor do our adversaries except against it. If the thing itself be proved that is intended by that expression, this controversy is at end. Farther to open the nature of satisfaction, then, by what is said before about bearing of sins, etc., I see no reason; our aim in that word is known to all, and the sense of it obvious. This is made by some the general head of the whole business. I have placed it on the peculiar consideration of Christ’s bearing our sins and undergoing punishment for us. What our catechists say to the whole I shall briefly consider.

Having assigned some causes and effects of the death of Christ, partly true in their own place, partly false, they ask, question 12, —

Ques. Is there no other cause of the death of Christ?

Ans. None at all. As for that which Christians commonly think, that Christ by his death merited salvation for us, and satisfied fully for our sins, that opinion is false (or deceitful), erroneous, and very pernicious.⁵⁰⁸⁵⁰⁸   “Non est etiam aliqua alia morris Christi causa? — Nulla prorsus. Etsi nuno vulgo Christiani sentiunt, Christum morte sua nobis salutem meruisse, et pro peccatis nostris plenarie satisfecisse, quæ sententia fallax est et erronea, et admodum peraiciosa.” — Cat. Rac. de mor. Chris. cap. viii. q. 12.

That the men of this persuasion are bold men we are not now to learn; only, this assertion, that there is no other cause of the death of Christ but what they have mentioned, is a new experiment thereof.

If we must believe that these men know all things and the whole mind of God, so that all is “false and pernicious” that lies beyond their road and understanding, there may be some colour for this confidence; but the account we have already taken of them will not allow us to grant them this plea.

Of the merit of Christ I have spoken briefly before. His satisfaction is the thing opposed chiefly. What they have to say against it shall now be considered; as also, how this imputation or charge on 543the common faith of Christians, about the satisfaction of Christ to be “false, erroneous, and pernicious,” will be managed.

Q. How is it false (or deceitful)?

A. That it is false (or deceitful) and erroneous is hence evident, that not only there is nothing of it extant in the Scripture, but also that it is repugnant to the Scriptures and sound reason.⁵⁰⁹⁵⁰⁹   “Qua ratione? — Quod ad id quod fallax sit et erronea, attinct, id hinc perspicuum est, quod non solum de ea nihil extet in Scripturis, verum etiam Scripturis et sanæ rationi repugnat?”

For the truth of this suggestion, that it is not extant in Scripture, I refer the reader to what hath been discoursed from the Scripture about it already. When they, or any for them, shall answer or evade the testimonies that have been produced, or may yet be so (for I have yet mentioned none of those which immediately express the dying of Christ for us, and his being our mediator and surety in his death), they shall have liberty, for me, to boast in this manner. In the meantime, we are not concerned in their wretched confidence. But let us see how they make good their assertion by instances:—

Q. Show that in order?

A. That it is not in the Scripture this is an argument, that the assertors of that opinion do never bring evident scriptures for the proof of it, but knit certain consequences by which they endeavour to make good what they assert; which as it is meet to admit when they are necessarily deduced from Scripture, so it is certain they have no force when they are repugnant to the Scripture.⁵¹⁰⁵¹⁰   “Demonstra id ordine? — Id non haberi in Scripturis argumento est, quod istius opinionis assertores nunquam perspicuas scripturas afferunt ad probandam istam opinionem, verum quasdam consecutiones nectunt quibus quod asserunt efficere conantur; quas ut admittere sequum est cum ex Scripturis necessario adstruuntur, ita ubi Scripturis repugnant eas nullum vim habere certum est.” — Ques. 15.

But what is it that we do not prove by express Scripture, and that in abundance? That “our iniquity was laid upon Christ;” that “he was bruised, grieved, wounded, killed for us;” that “he bare our iniquities,” and that “in his own body on the tree;” that “he was made sin for us” and “a curse;” that we deserved death, and “he died for us;” that “he made his soul an offering for sin, laid down his life a price and ransom for us,” or in our stead; that we are thereby “redeemed and reconciled to God;” that our “iniquities being laid on him,” and he “bearing them” (that is, the punishment due to them), “we have deliverance;” God being atoned, and his wrath removed, — we prove not by consequence, but by multitudes of express testimonies. If they mean that the word “satisfaction” is not found in Scripture in the business treated of, we tell them that אָשָׁם‎ is; and λύτρον ἀντίλυτρον, and λύτρωσις ἀπολύτρωσις καταλλαγή (all words of a cognate significancy thereto, and of the same importance as to the doctrine under consideration), are frequently used. It is, indeed, a hard task to find the word satisfaction in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New; but the 544thing itself is found expressly a hundred times over; and their great master doth confess that it is not the word, but the thing itself, that he opposeth. So that, without any thanks to them at all for granting that consequences from Scripture may be allowed to prove matters of faith, we assure them our doctrine is made good by innumerable express testimonies of the word of God, some whereof have been by us now insisted on; and, moreover, that if they and their companions did not wrest the Scriptures to strange and uncouth senses, never heard of before amongst men professing the name of Christ, we could willingly abstain wholly from any expression that is not ῥητῶς, found in the Word itself. But if, by their rebellion against the truth, and attempts to pervert all the expressions of the Word, the most clear and evident, to perverse and horrid abominations, we are necessitated to them, they must bear them, unless they can prove them not to be true.

Let the reader observe, that they grant that the consequences we gather from Scripture would evince that which we plead and contend for, were it not that they are repugnant to other scriptures. Let them, then, manifest the truth of their pretension by producing those other scriptures, or confess that they are self-condemned.

Wherefore they ask, —

Q. How is it repugnant to the Scriptures?

A. In this sort, that the Scriptures do everywhere testify that God forgives sin freely, 2 Cor. v. 19, Rom. iii. 24, 25; but principally under the new covenant, Eph. ii. 8, Matt. xviii. 23, etc. Now, nothing is more opposite to free remission than satisfaction; so that if a creditor be satisfied either by the debtor himself or by any other in the name of the debtor, he cannot be said to forgive freely.⁵¹¹⁵¹¹   “Qui vero Scripturæ repugnat? — Ad eum modum, quod Scripturæ passim Deum peccata hominibus gratuito remittere testentur, 2 Cor. v. 19, Rom. iii. 24, 25; potissimum vero sub novo fœdere, Eph. ii. 8, Matt. xviii. 23, etc. At remissioni gratuitæ nihil adversatur magis quam sstisfactio. Cui enim creditori satisfit vel ab ipso debitore, vel ab alio debitoris nomine, de eo dlci non potest vere eum debitum gratuito ex ipsa gratis remisisse.”

If this be all that our consequences are repugnant unto in the Scripture, we doubt not to make a speedy reconciliation; indeed there was never the least difference between them. Not to dwell long upon that which is of an easy despatch, —

1. This objection is stated solely to the consideration of sin as a debt, which is metaphorical. Sin properly is an offence, a rebellion, a transgression of the law, an injury done, not to a private person, but to a governor in his government.

2. The first two places mentioned, 2 Cor. v. 18–20, Rom. iii. 24, 25, do expressly mention the payment of this debt by Christ as the ground of God’s forgiveness, remission, and pardon; the payment of it, I say, not as considered metaphorically as a debt, but the making an atonement and reconciliation for us who had committed it, considered as a crime and rebellion or transgression.

5453. We say that God doth most freely forgive us, as Eph. ii. 8, Matt. xviii. 23, etc., without requiring any of the debt at our hands, without requiring any price or ransom from us or any satisfaction at our hands; but yet he forgives us for Christ’s sake, setting forth him to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, he laying down his life a ransom for us, God not sparing him, but giving him up to death for us all.

4. The expression of another satisfying in the name of the debtor intends either one procured by the debtor, and at his entreaty undertaking the work, or one graciously given and assigned to be in his stead by the creditor, In the first sense it hath an inconsistency with free remission, in the latter not at all.

The truth is, men that dream of an opposition between the satisfaction made by Christ, the surety and mediator of the new covenant, and free remission made to us, are utterly ignorant of the whole mystery of the gospel, nature of the covenant, and whole mediation of Christ, advancing carnal imaginations against innumerable testimonies of the Scripture, witnessing the blessed conspiration between them, to the praise of the glorious grace of God. But they say:—

That it is contrary to reason also, because it would hence follow “that Christ underwent eternal death, if he satisfied God for our sins, seeing it is manifest that the punishment we deserved by our sins was eternal death. Also, it would follow that we should be more bound to Christ than to God himself, as to him who had shown us greater favour in satisfaction; but God receiving satisfaction afforded us no favour.”⁵¹²⁵¹²   “Cedo qui istud rationi repugnat? — Id quidem hinc perspicuum est, quod sequeretur Christum æternam mortem subiisæ, si Deo pro peccatis nostris satisfecisset, cum constet pœnam quam homines peccatis meruerant ætornam mortem esse. Deinde consequeretur nos Christo quam Dee ipsi devinctiores ease, quippe qui satisfactione multum gratiæ nobis ostendisset; Deus veto exacta satisfactione, nulla prorsus gratia nos prosecutus fuisset.”

What little relief this plea will afford our adversaries will quickly appear; for, —

1. I have proved that Christ underwent that death that was due unto sinners, which was all that justice, law, or reason required. He underwent it, though it was impossible for him to be detained by it.

2. If the Racovians do not think us obliged to God for sending his Son, out of his infinite and eternal love, to die for us, causing all our iniquities to meet on him, justifying us freely (who could do nothing for our own delivery) through the redemption that is in the blood of Christ, we must tell them that (we bless his holy name!) we are not of that mind, but, finding a daily fruit of his love and kindness upon our souls, do know that we are bound unto him eternally, to love, praise, serve, honour, and glorify him, beyond what we shall ever be able to express.

For the inquiry made and comparison instituted between our 546obligation to the Father and the Son, or which of them we are most beholden to, we profess we cannot speak unto it. Our obligation to both, and either respectively, is such that if our affections were extended immeasurably to what they are, yet the utmost and exactest height of them would be due to both, and each of them respectively. We are so bound to one as we cannot be more to the other, because to both in the absolutely highest degree. This we observe in the Scriptures, that in mentioning the work of redemption, the rise, fountain, and spring of it is still assigned to be in the love of the Father, the carrying of it on in the love and obedience of the Son, and so we order our thoughts of faith towards them; the Father being not one whit the less free and gracious to us by loving us upon the satisfaction of his Son than if he had forgiven us (had it been possible) without any satisfaction at all.

And thus is this article of the Christian faith contrary to Scripture, and to reason. They add:—

Q. How also is it pernicious?

A. In that it openeth a door unto men to sin, or at least incites them to sloth in following after holiness. But the Scripture witnesseth that this amongst others is an end of the death of Christ, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and deliver us from this evil world, that we might be redeemed from our vain conversation, and have our consciences purged from dead works, that we might serve the living God, Tit. ii. 14; Gal. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 18; Heb. ix.14.⁵¹³⁵¹³   “Cedo etiam qui hæc opinio est perniciosa? — Ad eum modum, quod hominibus fenestram ad peccandi licentiam aperiat, aut certe ad socordiam in pietate colenda eos invitet. Scriptura vero testatur, cum inter alios Christi mortis finem esse, ut redimeremur ab omni iniquitate, ex hoc seculo nequam eriperemur, et redimeremur ex vana conversatione a patribus tradita, et mundaremur conscientia a mortuis operibus ad serviendum Deo viventi, Tit. ii. 14; Gal. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 18; Heb. ix. 14.”

That the deliverance of us from the power and pollution of our sin, the purifying of our souls and consciences, the making of us a peculiar people of God, zealous of good works, that we might be holy and blameless before him in love, is one eminent end of the death of Christ, we grant. For this end, by his death, did he procure the Spirit to quicken us, “who were dead in trespasses and sins,” sprinkling us with the pure water thereof, and giving us daily supplies of grace from him, that we might grow up in holiness before him, until we come to the measure in this life assigned to us in him. But that the consideration of the cross of Christ, and the satisfaction made thereby, should open a door of licentiousness to sin, or encourage men to sloth in the ways of godliness, is fit only for them to assert to whom the gospel is folly.

What is it, I pray, in the doctrine of the cross that should thus dispose men to licentiousness and sloth? Is it that God is so provoked with every sin that it is impossible and against his nature to forgive it without inflicting the punishment due thereto? or is it that 547God so loved us that he gave his only Son to die for us? or is it that Christ loved us and washed us in his own blood? or is it that God for Christ’s sake doth freely forgive us? Yea, but our adversaries say that God freely forgives us; yea, but they say it is without satisfaction. Is it, then, an encouragement to sin to affirm that God forgives us freely for the satisfaction of his Son, and not so to say that he forgives us freely without satisfaction? Doth the adding of satisfaction, whereby God to the highest manifested his indignation and wrath against sin, doth that, I say, make the difference and give the encouragement? Who could have discovered this but our catechists and their companions! Were this a season for that purpose, I could easily demonstrate that there is no powerful or effectual motive to abstain from sin, no encouragement or incitation unto holiness, but what ariseth from or relateth unto the satisfaction of Christ.

And this is that which they have to make good their charge against the common faith, that “it is false, erroneous, and pernicious”! Such worthy foundations have they of their great superstruction, or rather so great is their confidence and so little is their strength for the pulling down of the church built upon the Rock!

They proceed to consider what testimonies and proofs (they say) we produce for the confirmation of the truth contended for. What (they say) we pretend from reason (though indeed it be from innumerable places of Scripture), I have vindicated not long since to the full in my book of the vindictive justice of God,⁵¹⁴⁵¹⁴   De Justit. Divin. Diatrib. vol. x. and answered all the exceptions given thereunto, so that I shall not translate from thence what I have delivered to this purpose, but pass to what follows.

Question 12 they make this inquiry:—

Q. Which are the scriptures out of which they endeavour to confirm their opinion?

A. Those which testify that Christ died for us, or for our sins, also that he redeemed us, or that he gave himself or his life a redemption for many; then that he is our mediator; moreover, that he reconciled us to God, and is a propitiation for our sins; lastly, from those sacrifices which, as figures, shadowed forth the death of Christ.⁵¹⁵⁵¹⁵   “Quæ vero sunt scripturæ e quibus illi opinionem suam adatruere conantur? — Eæ quæ testantur Christum vel pro peccatis nostris mortuum, deinde, quod nos redemit, ant dedit semetipsum et animam suam redemptionem pro multis; tum quod noster mediator est. Porro quod nos reconciliarit Deo, et sit propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. Deniquc, ex illis sacrificiis quæ mortum Christi seu figuræ adumbraverunt.”

So do they huddle up together those very many express testimonies of the truth we plead for which are recorded in the Scripture; of which I may truly say that I know no one truth in the whole Scripture that is so freely and fully delivered, as being, indeed, of the greatest importance to our souls. What they except in particular against any one of the testimonies that may be referred to the heads 548before recounted (except those which have been already spoken to) shall be considered in the order wherein they proceed.

They say, then:—

For what belongeth unto those testimonies wherein it is contended that Christ died for us, it is manifest that satisfaction cannot necessarily be therein asserted, because the Scripture witnesseth that we ought even to lay down our lives for the brethren,1 John iii. 16; and Paul writes of himself, Col. i. 24, “Now I rejoice in my affliction for you, and fill up the remainder of the affliction of Christ for his body, which is the church:” but it is certain that neither do believers satisfy for any of the brethren, nor did Paul make satisfaction to any for the church.

Q. What then is the sense of these words, “Christ died for us?”

A. That these words “for us” do not signify in our place or stead, but for us, as the apostle expressly speaks, 1 Cor. viii. 11, which also alike places do show, where the Scripture saith that Christ died for our sins; which word cannot have this sense, that Christ died instead of our sins, but that he died for our sins, as it is expressly written, Rom. iv. 25. Moreover, these words, “Christ died for us,” have this sense, that he therefore died, that we might embrace and obtain that eternal salvation which he brought to us from heaven; which how it is done you heard before.⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶   “Quod attinet ad ilia testimonia in quibus habetur Christum pro nobis mortuum, ex iis satisfactionem adstrui necessario non posse hinc manifestum est, quod Scriptura testetur etiam nos pro fratribus animas ponere debere, 1 John iii. 16; et Paulus de se scribat, Col. i. 24, Nunc gaudeo, etc. Certum autem est, nec fideles pro fratribus cuiquam satisfacere, neque Paulum cuiquam pro ecclesia satisfecisse.
   “At horum verborum, Christum pro nobis esse mortuum, qui sensus est? — Is, quod hæc verba pro nobis non significent loco vel vice nostri, verum propter nos, uti etiam apostolus expresse loquitur, 1 Cor. viii. 11, quod etiam similia verba indicant, cum Scriptura loquitur pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse Christum, quæ verba eum sensum habere nequeunt, loco seu vice nostrorum peccatorum mortuum esse, verum propter peccata nostra esse mortuum, uti Rom. iv. 25, manifeste scriptum legimus. Ea porro verba, Christum pro nobis mortuum esse, hanc habent vim, eum idcirco mortuum, ut nos salutem æternam quam is nobis cœlitus attulit amplecteremur et consequemur, quod qua ratione fiat paulo superius accepisti.”

Ans. Briefly to state the difference between us about the meaning of this expression, “Christ died for us,” I shall give one or two observations upon what they deliver, then confirm the common faith, and remove their exceptions thereto:—

1. Without any attempt of proof, they oppose “vice nostri” and “propter nos,” as contrary and inconsistent, and make this their argument that Christ did not die “vice nostri,” because he died “propter nos,” when it is one argument whereby we prove that Christ died in our stead, because he died for us in the sense mentioned 1 Cor. viii. 11, where it is expressed by διά, because we could no otherwise be brought to the end aimed at.

2. Our sense of the expression is evident from what we insist upon in the doctrine in hand. “Christ died for us,” — that is, he underwent the death and curse that was due to us, that we might be delivered therefrom.

3. The last words of the catechists are those wherein they strive to hide the abomination of their hearts in reference to this business, I shall a little lay it open:—

549(1.) Christ, say they, “brought us eternal salvation from heaven;” that is, “he preached a doctrine in obedience whereunto we may obtain salvation.” So did Paul.

(2.) “He died that we might receive it;” that is, “rather than he would deny the truth which he preached, he suffered himself to be put to death.” So did Paul, and yet he was not crucified for the church.

(3.) “It is not indeed the death of Christ, but his resurrection, that hath an influence into our receiving of his doctrine, and so our obtaining salvation.”

And this is the sense of these words, “Christ died for us”!

For the confirmation of our faith from this expression, “Christ died for us,” we have, —

(1.) The common sense and customary usage of humankind as to this expression. Whenever one is in danger, and another is said to come and die for him that he may be delivered, a substitution is still understood. The ἀντίψυχοι of old, as Damon and Pythias, etc., make this manifest.

(2.) The common usage of this expression in Scripture confirms the sense insisted on. So David wished that he had died for his son Absalom, that is, died in his stead, that he might have lived, 2 Sam. xviii. 33. And that supposal of Paul, Rom. v. 7, of one daring to die for a good man, relating (as by all expositors on the place is evinced) to the practice of some in former days, who, to deliver others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto they were obnoxious, confirms the same.

(3.) The phrase itself of ἀπέθανε, or ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which is used, Heb. ii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 21,⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷   In these two passages the phrase in question does not occur. The author might consider the expressions equivalent, and we have allowed them to remain. —Ed. Rom. v. 6–8, 2 Cor. v. 14, sufficiently proves our intention, compared with the use of the preposition in other places, especially being farther explained by the use of the preposition ἀντί which ever denotes a substitution in the same sense and business, Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6. That a substitution and commutation is always denoted by this preposition (if not an opposition, which here can have no place), 1 Pet. iii. 9, Rom. xii. 17, Matt. v. 38, Luke xi. 11, Heb. xii. 16, 1 Cor. xi. 15, amongst other places, are sufficient evidences.

(4.) Christ is so said to die ἀντὶ ἡμῶν, that he is said in his death to have “our iniquity laid upon him,” to “bear our sins in his own body on the tree,” to be “made sin and a curse for us,” to “offer himself a sacrifice for us” by his death, his blood, to “pay a price or ransom for us,” to “redeem,” to “reconcile us to God,” to “do away our sins in his blood,” to “free us from wrath, and condemnation, and sin.” Now, whether this, to “die for us,” be not to die in our place and stead, let angels and men judge.

5504. But say they, “This is all that they have to say in this business: yet ‘we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren;’ and Paul saith, that he ‘filled up the measure of the affliction of Christ, for his body’s sake, the church;’ but neither the one nor the other did make satisfaction to God by their death or affliction.” But, —

(1.) If all we had to plead for the sense of this expression, “Christ died for us,” depended solely on the sense and use of that word ὑπέρ, then the exception would have this force in it: “The word is once or twice used in another sense in another business; therefore the sense of it contended for in this business cannot be such as you seek to maintain.” But, [1.] This exception at best, in a cause of this importance, is most frivolous, and tends to the disturbance of all sober interpretation of Scripture. [2.] We are very far from making the single sense of the preposition to be the medium which, in the argument from the whole expression, we insist on.

(2.) The passage in 1 John iii. 16, being a part of the apostle’s persuasive to love, charity, and the fruits of them, tending to the relief of the brethren in poverty and distress, disclaims all intendment and possibility of a substitution or commutation, nor hath any intimation of undergoing that which was due to another, but only of being ready to the utmost to assist and relieve them. The same is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul. Of the measure of affliction which, in the infinitely wise providence and fatherly care of God, is proportioned to the mystical body of Christ’s church, Paul underwent his share for the good of the whole; but that Paul, that any believers, were crucified for the church, or died for it in the sense that Christ died for it, that they redeemed it to God by their own blood, it is notorious blasphemy once to imagine. The meaning of the phrase, “He died for our sins,” was before explained. Christ, then, “dying for us,” being “made sin for us,” “bearing our iniquities,” and “redeeming us by his blood,” died in our place and stead, and by his death made satisfaction to God for our sins.

Also, that Christ made satisfaction for our sins appears from hence, that he was our mediator. Concerning this, after their attempt against proper redemption by his blood, which we have already considered, question 28, they inquire, —

Q. What say you to this, that Christ is the mediator between God and men, or [the mediator] of the new covenant?

A. Seeing it is read that Moses was a mediator, Gal. iii. 19 (namely, of the old covenant between God and the people of Israel), and it is evident that he no way made satisfaction to God, neither from hence, that Christ is the mediator of God and men, can it be certainly gathered that he made any satisfaction to God for our sins.⁵¹⁸⁵¹⁸   “Quid ad hæc dicis, quod Christus sit mediator inter Deum et homines, aut novo fœderis? — Cum legatur Moses fuisse mediator, Gal. iii. 19 (puta inter Deum et populum Israel aut prisoi fœderis), neque eum satisfecisse Deo ullo modo constet, ne hinc quidem, quod mediator Dei et hominum Christus sit, colligi certo poterit eum satisfactionem aliquam qua Deo pro peccatis nostris satisfieret peregisse.”

551I shall take leave, before I proceed, to make a return of this argument to them from whom it comes, by a mere change of the instance given. Christ, they say, our high priest, offered himself to God in heaven. Now, Aaron is expressly said to be a high priest, and yet he did not offer himself in heaven; and therefore it cannot be certainly proved that Christ offereth himself in heaven because he was a high priest. Or thus:— David was a king, and a type of Christ; but David reigned at Jerusalem, and was a temporal king: it cannot therefore be proved that Christ is a spiritual king from hence, that he is said to be a king. This argument, I confess, Faustus Socinus could not answer when it was urged against him by Seidelius. But for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have answered that it is true, it cannot be necessarily proved that Christ offereth himself in heaven because he was a high priest, which Aaron was also, but because he was such a high priest as entered into the heavens to appear personally in the presence of God for us, as he is described to be. Until he can give us a better answer to our argument, I hope he will be content with this of ours to his. It is true, it doth not appear, nor can be evinced necessarily, that Christ made satisfaction for us to God because he was a mediator in genera], for so Moses was, who made no satisfaction; but because it is said that he was such a “mediator between God and men” as gave his life a “price of redemption” for them for whom with God he mediated, 1 Tim. ii. 6, it is most evident and undeniable; and hereunto Smalcius is silent.

What remains of this chapter in the catechists hath been already fully considered; so to them and Mr B., as to his twelfth chapter, about the death of Christ, what hath been said may suffice. Many weighty considerations of the death of Christ in this whole discourse, I confess, are omitted, — and yet more, perhaps, have been delivered than by our adversaries occasion hath been administered unto; but this business is the very centre of the new covenant, and cannot sufficiently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long be made for the brief stating of all the several concernments of it.