Socinus would have it hei'e be as much as '•' abstulit," " he took away." So saith he, " God took away our sin in Christ, when by him he declared and confirmed the way whereby pardon and remission
452 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
is to be obtained, as he pardoned our sin in Christ by discovering the new covenant and mercy therein/' Now, because the word is of such various significations, there is a necessity that it be interpreted by the circumstances of the place where it is used. And because there is not any circumstance of the place on the account whereof the word should be rendered " abstulit," " he took away," and not " tulit,'' " he took," " bare," or " suffered," we must consider what arguments or reasons are scraped together " aliunde" by them, and then evince what is the proper signification of it in this place: —
(1.) " This very expression is used of God, Exod. xxxiv. 7, I^V ^^^> 'ferens iniquitatem,' as also it is again repeated. Num. xiv. 18; in both which places we translate it ' forgiving,' ' forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Nor can it be properly spoken of God to bear, for God cannot bear, as the word properly signifies."
The sum of the objection is, the word that is used so many times, and so often metaphorically, is once or twice in another place used for to take away or to pardon, therefore this must be the sense of it in this place ! God cannot be said to bear iniquities but only meta- phorically, and so he is often said to bear, to be pressed, to be weary, and made to serve with them. He is said to bear our sins in reference to the end of bearing any thing, which is to carry it away, God in Christ taking away, pardoning our sins, is said to bear them, because that is the way which sins are taken away; they are taken up, carried, and laid aside. But he of whom these words are spoken here did bear properly, and could do so, as shall be showed.
(2.) The interpretation of this place by Matthew, or the application of it, is insisted on, which is of more importance: " Matt. viii. 16, 17, Christ curing the diseases of many, and bodily sicknesses, is said to 'bear our griefs,' according as it is said in Isaiah that he should do. Now, he did not bear our diseases by taking them upon himself, and so becoming diseased, but morally, in that by his power he took them away from them in whom they were."
Not to make many words, nor to multiply interpretations and ac- commodations of these places, — which may be seen in them who have to good purpose made it their business to consider the parallel places of the Old and New Testaments, and to reconcile them, — I say only, it is no new thing to have the effect and evidence and end of a thing spoken of in the New Testament, in answer to the cause and rise of it mentioned in the Old, by the application of the same words unto it which they are mentioned in. For instance, Paul, Eph. iv. 8, citing that of the psalmist, Ps. Ixviii. 18, " Thou hast ascended up on high, and hast led captivity captive, and received gifts for men," renders it, " When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men ;" and that because his giving of them was the end of his receiving of them, and his receiving of them the foun-
OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 453
dation of his giving of them, the effect and fruit being here expressed, the foundation and ground supposed. So also, " Mine ears hast thou bored," Ps. xl. 6, is rendered "A body hast thou prepared me/' Heb. X. 5 ; because the end of the boring of the ears of Christ was, that he might offer his body a sacrifice to God So it is here in this place of Matthew. Christ's taking away the bodily distempers and sicknesses of men was an effect and an evidence of his taking away their sins, which was done by bearing of them ; and therefore Mat- thew mentioning the effect and evidence of the thing doth it in the words that express the cause and foundation of it. Not that that was a complete accomplishment of what was foretold, but that it was so demonstrated in the effect and evidence of it. Nor do the Soci- nians themselves think that this was a full accomplishment of what is spoken by the prophet, themselves insisting on another interpre- tation of the words. So that notwithstanding these exceptions, the Avord here may have its proper signification, of bearing or carrying; which also that it hath may be farther evidenced.
(1.) Here is no cogent reason why the metaphorical use of the word should be understood. When it is spoken of God, there is necessity that it should be interpreted by the effect, because properly he can- not bear nor undergo grief, sorrow, or punishment : but as to the Mediator, the case is otherwise, for he confessedly underwent these things properly, wherein we say that tliis word "bearing of punish- ment" doth consist; he was so bruised, so broken, so slain. So that there is no reason to depart from the propriety of the word.