OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 533
ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job/' etc. The offenders are Eliphaz and his two friends; the of- fence is their folly in not speaking aright of God ; the issue of the breach is, that the wrath or anger of God was towards them. Recon- ciliation is the turning away of that wrath. The means whereby this was to be done, appointed of God, is the saci'ifice of Job for atonement.
This, then, is that which we ascribe to the death of Christ when we say that, as a sacrifice, we were reconciled to God by it, or that he made reconciliation for us. Having made God our enemy by sin (as before), Christ by his death turned away his anger, appeased his wrath, and brought us into favour again with God. Before the proof of this, I must needs give one caution as to some terms of this dis- course, as also remove an objection that lies at the very entrance against the whole nature of that which is treated of.
For the Jirst, When we speak of the anger of God, his wrath, and his being appeased towards us, we speak after the manner of men ; but yet by the allowance of God himself Not that God is properly angry, and properly altered from that state and appeased, whereby he should properly be mutable and be actually changed ; — but by the anger of God, which sometimes in Scripture signifieth his justice, from whence punishment proceeds, sometimes the effects of anger, or punishment itself, the obstacles before mentioned on the part of God, from his nature, justice, law, and truth, are intended ; and by his being appeased towards us, his being satisfied as to all the bars so laid in the way of receiving us to favour, without the least alteration in him, his nature, will, or justice. And according to the analogy hereof, I desire that whatever is spoken of the anger of God, and his being appeased or altered (which is the language wherein he converseth with us and instructs us to wisdom), may be measured and interpreted.
The objection I shall propose in the words of Crellius : —
If this be the chiefest and highest love of God, that he sent Christ, his only Son, to be a propitiation for our sins, how then could Christ by his death appease the wrath of God that was incensed against us ? for seeing that God's love was the cause of sending Christ, he must needs before that have laid aside his anger ; for otherwise, should he not intensely love us and not love us at the same time? And if God could then be angry with us when he gave up his Son to bitter death for our everlasting happiness, what argument or evidence at any time can we have from the effect of it, whence we may know that God is not farther angry with us?'
' " Si in CO sita est dilectio, quod Deus nos dilexcrit et Filium suum miserit iXxirfiov pro peccatis nostris, quomodo Christus mortc sua denium iram Dei adversus nos in- censam placavit ? nam cum dilectio ilia Dei quae plane fuit sunima, causa fuit cur Deus Filium suum charissimum miserit, necesse est ut iram jam suam adversus nos depo- suerit ; nonne alitor eodem tempore et impense amabit et non amabit ? Si Deus etiam turn potuit nobis irasci cum Filium suum charissimum suprcmte nostne felicitatis causa morti acerbissimoe objiccret, quod satis magnum argumcntum crit ex elfectu ejus petitum, unde cognoscamus Deum nobis non irasci amplius." — Crell. Dcfen. Socin. con. Grot. part. vi.
53-1 VINDICIiE EVANGELICiE.
To the same -purpose Sociniis himself: " Demonstravi non modo Christum Deo nos, non autem Deum nobis reconciliasse, verum etiam Deum ipsum fuisse qui hanc reconciliationem fecerit," Socin. de Servator. lib. i. part. i. cap. i.
To the same purpose is the plea of the catechist, cap. viii., " De Morte Christi," q. 31, 82.
Ans. 1. The love wherewith God loved us when he sent his Son to die for us was the most intense and supreme in its own kind, nor •would admit of any hatred or enmity in God towards us that stood in opposition thereunto. It is everywhere set forth as the most in- tense love, John iii. 16; Rom. v. 7, 8; 1 John iv. 10. Now, this love of God is an eternal free act of his will; his " purpose," Eom. ix. 11; " his good pleasure," his purpose that he " pui-posed in himself," as it is called, Eph. i. 5, 9 ; it is his <xp6k(iig, iudoxia, irpoyvusig, 1 Pet. i. 2, as I have elsewhere distinctly declared; a love that was to have an efficacy by means appointed. But for a love of friendship, approba- tion, acceptation as to our persons and duties, God bears none unto us, but as considered in Christ and for his sake. It is contrary to the whole design of the Scripture and innumerable particular testi- monies once to fancy a love of friendship and acceptation towards any in God, and not consequent to the death of Christ.
2. This love of God's purpose and good pleasure, this " charitas ordinativa," hath not the least inconsistency with those hinderances of peace and friendship on the part of God before mentioned; for though the holiness of God's nature, the justice of his government, the veracity of his word, will not allow that he take a sinner into friendship and communion with himself without satisfaction made to him, yet this hinders not but that, in his sovereign good-will and pleasure, he might purpose to recover us from that condition by the holy means which he appointed. God did not love us and not love us, or was angry with us, at the same time and in the same respect. He loved us in respect of the free purpose of his will to send Christ to redeem us and to satisfy for our sin; he was angry with us in respect of his violated law and provoked justice by sin.