§ 6. Our Lord Jesus Christ is prophesied of in the Old Testament, under the name of 79 Cohen: Psal. ex, 4, ὈΣῚ 5 yD mmN—Thou art Cohen for ever. And Zech. vi. 13. «N03 Dy 1Π5 MTt—and he shall be Cohen upupon his throne. We render it in both places a priest, that is tepeve, Sacerdos. Inthe New Testament, that is in this epistle, he is frequenly said to be iepeve and αρχιέρευς, which we likewise express by priest and highpriest; Pontifex, Pontifer Maximus. The meaning of these words must be first inquired into.
§ 7. 175 the verb is used only in Pihel, Cihen: and it signifies Sacerdotio fungi, or Munus Sacerdotale exercere; to be a priest, or to exercise the office of the priesthood; igpovpyew. The LXX. mostly render it by teparevw, which is Sacerdotio fungor, to exercise the priestly office; although it be also used in the inauguration or consecration of a person to the priesthood. Once they translate it by λειτουργεω, 1 Chron. xi. 23, ‘in sacris operari,’ to serve and minister in or about sacred things. ‘Iepovpyew is used by our apostle in this sense, and applied to the preaching of the gospel, Εἰς ro ειναι μὲ λειτουργον Inoov Χριστοῦ εις Ta εϑνη ἱερουργουντὰα TO εὐαγγελιον τοῦ Θεου, Rom. xv. 16. Here it means Employed in the saered ministration of the gospel. He useth both Aerovpyoc and tepovpyew metaphorically, with respect to the προσφορα or sacrifice which he made of the Gentiles, which was also metaphorical. And isparevw is used by Luke with respect to the service in the Jewish temple, chap. i. 8, for originally both the words have respect unto proper sacrifices. Some would have the word 73 to be ambiguous, and to signify ‘ officio fungi, aut ministrare in sacris aut politicis > to discharge an office, or to minister, either in things sacred or political. But no instance can be produced of its use to this purpose. Once it seems to be applied unto things not sacred: Isa. xi. 10. IND JS. jon. ‘Asa bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments; or adorneth himself with beauty, that is beautiful garments. If the word did originally and properly signify to adorn, it might thence be applied to the exercise of the office of the priesthood, seeing the priests therein were by special institution to be clothed with garments MNDN>) jan> Exod. xxviii. 40, for glory and for beauty. So the priests of Moloch were called Chemarim, from the colour of their garments, or their countenances made black with the soot of their fire and sacrifices. But this is not the proper signification of the word. But as the priesthood was to be exercised in beautiful garments and sundry ornaments, the word was thence employed to express adorning. The LXX. render it by περιτιθημι, but withal acknowledge somewhat sacerdotal in the expression; ὡς νυμφίῳ περιεϑήῆκε μοι μιτραν; ‘He (that is God) hath put on me a mitre as on a bridegroom, which was a sacerdotal ornament. And Aquila, asa bridegroom, teparevopevoc orepavy, bearing the crown of the priesthood, or discharging the priest’s office in a crown. And the Targum, observing the peculiar application of the word in this place, adds 829 N27733), and as an high priest is adorned. All agree that an allusion is made to the garments and ornaments of the high priest. The place may be rendered, As a bridegroom, He (that is, God the bridegroom of the church) doth consecrate me with glory, gloriously set me apart for himself. The word ἹΓΤΞ therefore is sacred; and though it is sometimes transferred to signify other persons, as we shall see afterwards; yet ji2 properly is only used in a sacred sense.
§ 8. The Arabic j7> Cahan is to divine, to prognosticate, to be a soothsayer, to foretel; and ]7#83 Caahan is a diviner, a prophet, an astrologer, a firure caster. It came to be used in these last senses, after the priests had generally taken themselves to such arts, partly curious, partly diabolical, by the instigation of the false gods to whom they ministered. Homer puts them together, as they came afterwards mostly to be the same. 4
‘ A prophet, or a priest, or an interpreter of dreams.’ ΤῸ the same purpose we read in Herodotus, Μάγους και αστρονομοὺυς TE και ϑυτας μετεπέμπετο; Herod. lib. 4. ‘ He sent for magicians, astronomers, and priests; for Sura¢ is a priest.’ The priests first gave out oracles and divinations in the temples of their gods; and from them proceeded a generation of impostors, who exceedingly infatuated the world, with a pretence of foretelling things to come, of interpreting dreams, and with doing things uncouth and strange, to the amazement of the beholders. And as they all pretended to derive their skill and power from the gods, whose priests they were, so they invented or had suggested to them by Satan, various ways and means of divination, or of attaining the knowledge of particular future events. From those ways to which any of them were chiefly addicted, they derived their names. Generally they were called D'2I aise men, as those of Keypt, Gen. xli. 8, and of Babylon, Dan. ii. 12,13. Hence we render μάγοι, the followers of their arts, mise men, Matt. ii. 1. Among the Egyptians they were divided into two sorts, DaWTT and D’pwor, Exod. vii. 11.; the head of one sort, probably in the days of Moses, being Jannes, and of the other Jambres, 2 Tim. iii. 1. We call them magicians and sorcerers. Among the Babylonians there is mention of these, and two sorts more are added unto them, namely, DWN and OW, Dan. 1.2. Of the difference and distinction among these, we shall treat afterwards. From this practice of the generality of priests, did j713 come to signify to soothsay or divine.
§ 9. ἹΠῸ is then ὦ priest. And he who was first called so in the Scripture, probably in the world, was Melchisedec, Gen. xiv. 18. On what account he was so called, shall be afterwards declared. Sometimes, though rarely, it is applied to express a priest of false gods; as of Dagon, 1 Sam. v. 5, of Egypt, Gen. xli. 45, ‘Joseph married the daughter of Potiphera 8 yD priest of On, that is, Heliopolis, the chief seat of the Egyptian religious worship. Nor is there any colour why the word should here be rendered prince, as it is N29 by the Targum. The Latin version renders the - word here by sacerdos, and the LXX. by ἵερευς; for the dignity of priests, especially of those who were eminent among them, was not less at that time in Egypt, and in other parts also of the world, than that of princes of the second sort; yea, we shall consider instances afterwards, wherein the kingly and priestly offices were conjoined in the same person, although none ever had the one by virtue of the other, but for some special reason. It was therefore intended by Pharaoh, as an honour to Joseph, to be married to the daughter of the priest of On. For the man, according to their esteem, was wise, pious, and honourable; seeing the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time consisted principally in the knowledge of the mysteries of their religion; and they who excelled in this knowledge of the mysteries of their religion; and they who excelled in this knowledge, were exalted, and esteemed honourable. Nor can it be pleaded against this exposition, that Joseph would not marry the daughter of an idolatrous priest, for all the Egyptians were no less idolatous than their priests. And he might as soon convert one of their daughters to the true God, as the daughter of any other Egyptian, which most probably did happen, and she would thus become a mother in Israel. In other places where, by }7> an idolatrous phiést, is intended, the Targum, renders it by 877213, Comara, whence are Chemarim. Yet the Syriac translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a priest, and a high priest, even when applied unto Christ, SVD and 34 Ν 215, though elsewhere in the New Testament he useth x23 Chahana constantly. The reason hereof I have declared elsewhere. -
§ 10. It is confessed that this name is sometimes used with respect to princes of a second rank or degree, but is never once applied to a chief supreme prince, or a king, though some kings, by virtue of some special warrant, were Cohanim also. The Jews therefore, after the Targum, offer violence to the text, Ps. ex. 4, where they would have Melchisedec to be called a Cohen, because he was a prince. But it is said expressly he was a king. Now no king on account of his kingly office was ever called Cohen. But unto those of a second rank it is sometimes accommodated, 2 Sam. xx. 26, ‘Ira the Jairite was 1195 1115 a chief ruler (say we) about David.’ A priest he was not, nor could be; for as Kimchi on the place observes, he is called the Cohen of David; but a priest was not a priest to one man, but to all Israel. So David’s sons are said to be Cohanim, 2 Sam. viii. 18. 9°22) IT DID WT, Sand the sons of David were Cohanim, that is princes; though the Vulgate render it sacerdotes. So also Job xii. 19, we translate. it princes. And in those places, the Targum useth N27, Rabba: the LXX. sometimes avAaprye, ‘a principal courtier, and sometimes svveroc, ‘a counsellor’ Itis granted then, that princes were called 0°23, not properly however, but by way of allusion, as being persons of dignity; for the most ancient dignity was that of the priesthood. And the same name is therefore used metaphorically to express especial dignity, Exod. xix. 6, ὙΠΠ mms nodmn 55, ‘and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,’ speaking of the whole people. This Peter renders, βασιλειον ἱερατευμα, 1 Pet. ii. 9, a kingly or royal priesthood. The name of the office is M2713, Exod. xl. 15, ἱερατευμα, “ pontificatus sacerdotium, the priesthood. Allowing therefore this application of the word, we may inquire what is the first proper signification of it. I say therefore that 1775, Cohen, is properly Suns, ‘a sacrificer; nor is it to be expounded otherwise in any passage, unless it is obvious that it is there used in a metaphorical sense.
§ 11. He who is first mentioned as vested with this office, is Melchisedec, Gen. xiv. 18. prdy 5xd 7D NIT, ‘and he was a priest unto the most high God’ The Targumists make a great difference in rendering the word j7>. Where it intends a priest of God properly they retain it, j73 and 8272. Where it is applied toa prince or ruler, they render it by 829, Rabba; and where an idolatrous priest, by NV212._ But in this matter of Melchisedec they are peculiar. In this place they use Ὁ), Meshamesh, SYM mody 3x DTP Ww, ‘and he was a minister before the high God.’ And by this word they express the ministry of the priests, Exod. xix. 22, SS DIP ΟΣ ΞΟ ΡΤ NTD, ‘the priests who draw nigh to minister before the Lord; whereby it is evident that they understood him to be a sacred officer, or a priest to God. But in Ps. ex. 4, where the same word occurs to the same purpose, they render it by N25, ‘a prince or great ruler; ‘ Thou art a great ruler, like Melchisedec,’ which is a part of their evident corruption of that Psalm, with the design of applying it to David. For the author of that Targum lived after they knew full well how the prophecy in that Psalm was applied iu our books, and by Christians to the
Messiah; and how the ceasing of their law and worship was from thence invincibly proved in this Epistle. This led them to a malicious perversion of the words in their paraphrase, although they durst not violate the sacred text itself. But the text is plain: Melchisedee was Cohen to the high God; that is, he was a priest, or one that was called to the office of solemnly sacrificing to God; for he that offereth not sacrifices to God, is not a priest to him, for this is the principal duty of that office, from which the whole receives its denomination. ‘That he offered sacrifices, those of the church of Rome would prove from those words, Gen. xiv. 18. om> ΝΠ 7"), ‘he brought forth bread and wine. But neither the context nor the words will support them in this; nor if they could prove what they intend, would it serve their purpose. Coming forth to meet Abraham, (as our apostle expounds this passage, ch. vii. 1,) he brought forth bread and wine for the relief and refreshment of himself and his servants, as a supply, supposing them wearied by their travel. So dealt Barzillai the Gileadite with Dayid and his men in the wilderness, 2Sam. xvii. 27—29. They brought out necessary provision for them, for they said, ‘The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness.’ And Gideon punished them of Succoth and Pentel for not doing the like, Judges viii. 5, 8, 16,17. But the aim of these men, is to find some countenance to their pretended sacrifice of the mass, which yet is not of bread and wine, for before the offering, they suppose them to be quite changed into the substance of flesh and blood. ‘The weakness of this pretence shall be elsewhere more fully declared. At present.it may suffice to observe, that N°8T is no sacred word, or that it is never used to express the offering of any thing to God. Besides, if it were an offering he brought forth, it was a M727, or meat-offering, with a 7D3, or a drink-offering, being of bread and wine. Now this was only an acknowledgement of God the Creator as such, and was not an immediate type of the sacrifice of Christ, which was represented by those offerings alone, which being made by blood, included a propitiation im them. But that Melchisedec was by office a sacrificer, appears from Abraham’s delivering up unto him, 2373 1Wyi, Gen. xiv. 20, ‘the tenth of all; that is, as our apostle interprets the place, των ἀκροθινιων, of the spoils he had taken, “Wy is a sacred word, and denotes God’s portion according to the law. So also those who had only the light of nature, and it may be some little knowledge of what was done in the world of old, whilst God’s institutions were of force among men, did devote and sacrifice the tenth of the spoils they took in war. So Camillus framed his vow to Apollo, when he went to destroy the city of Veii, ‘Tuo ductu, Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinctus, pergo ad delendam urbem Veios, tibique hine decimam partem preedz yoveo.’
The like instances occur in other authors, Arpo@ua is not used for the spoils themselves any where but in this place. In other authors, according to the derivation of the word, as it signifies the top or uppermost part of a heap, it is used only for that part or portion of spoils taken in war, which was devoted and made sacred, Herod, lib. 1, eure δὲ ἀκροθινια ravra καταγίειν Sewy oredy. And again, lib. 8. mpwra μὲν νυν τοισι ϑέεοισι εἕειλον ἀκροϑινια; ‘They took out the dedicated spoils for the gods.’ And the reason why our apostle useth the word for the whole spoils, whence a tenth was given to Melchisedec, is because the whole spoil was sacred and devoted unto God, whence an honorary tenth was taken for Melchisedec; as the priests had afterwards out of the portion of the Levites, for all Levi was now to be tithed in Abraham. Among those spoils, there would, without doubt, be many clean beasts meet for sacrifice. For the principal riches of those days consisted in flocks and herds, and these of course were the principal spoils of war, Num. xxxi. 32, 33. And _ because Saul knew that part of the spoils taken in lawful war was to be given for sacrifiees unto God, he made that his pretence of saving the fat cattle of the Amalekites, contrary to the express command of God, 1 Sam. xv. 15. Abraham therefore delivered these spoils unto Melchisedec, as the priest of the high God, to offer in sacrifice for him. And although the pre-eminence _ of Melchisedec, and his being the first and only priest in office, by virtue of a special call from God, was the principal consideration, yet perhaps Abraham was induced to give him the tenth of the spoils, from this consideration also, namely, because as he had just come from the slaughter of many kings, and of their numerous army, he was not yet prepared for this sacred service. For even among the heathen, they would abstain from their sacred offices after the shedding of blood, until they were one way or other purified to their own satisfaction. So in the poet:
Tu Genitor cape sacra manu patriosque penates; Me bello e tanto digressum et cede recenti Attrectare nefas, donec me flumine vivo
§ 12. The matter is made yet more evident, by the solemn erection of a priesthood among the ancient people of God, or the church in the wilderness. Sacrificing had, from the foundation of the world, been hitherto left at liberty. Every one who was called to perform any part of solemn religious worship, was allowed to discharge that duty also. But it pleased God, when he reduced his church into a peculiar order, to represent more conspicuously, by the appointment of a peculiar order by priesthood, what he would afterwards really effect in Jesus Christ. And, although this respected in general, ta προς τὸν Θεον, all things that were to be done in the service of God on the behalf of the people, yet the especial work and duty belonging unto it was sacrificing. ‘The institution of this office we have, Exod. XxXvill., whereof afterwards. And now the right to offer sacrifices was restricted to the priests, as soon as the office began to be discharged by them. _ And these two things are to be observed respecting the office of the priests:
1. That they were sacrificers. And,
2. That they only were so.
Which answers all that I intend to evince from this discourse; namely, that a priest is a sacrificer. Whereas, therefore, it is foretold that the Messiah should be a priest,and he is said so to be, the principle meaning of it is, that he should be a sacrificer; one that had right, and was called, to offer sacrifice to God. This was that for which he was principally and properly called a priest; and when he did act as a priest, then the right of sacrificing is confined to himself alone.
This is the general notion of a priest amongst all men throughout the world; and a due consideration hereof, is of itself sufficient to repel all the vain imaginations of the Socinians about this office of Christ, whereof we shall treat afterwards.
§ 1. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ. The eternal counsels of God; how to be inquired into. § 2. No priest or sacrifices in the state of innocence. § 3. Priesthood and sacrifices related. § 4. The nature of the office of the priesthood, Heb. v. 1, explained. § 5. In the state of innocence some might have acted for God towards men, none for other men towards God. § 6. No sacrifices in that state. To sacrifice is properly to slay. § 7. Killing essential to sacrifices. ᾧ 8. No revelation concerning sacrifices before the fall. §9. Opinion of some that the Son of God should have been incarnate if man had not sinned. Of the necessity of sacrifices in all religious worship. § 10. Pretences of reasons for the incarnation of Christ, without respect to sin or grace. § 11. The whole unwritten. § 12. Contrary to what is written. § 13. And destitute of countenance from spiritual reason. § 14. Pleas of the Pelagians and ancient schoolmen for the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocence. Their first argument from the glory of God and good of the universe, proposed and answered. § 15. The second argument from the capacity of the human nature for the grace of union in the state of innocence, answered. § 16. The mystery of the incarnation not revealed to Adam in the state of innocence. The meaning of those words, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. § 17. The order of God’s decrees concerning his glory in the salvation of mankind, considered. No order of them to be conceived that is consistent with the pre-ordination of the incarnation, without respect to sin and redemption, § 18. The arguments of Osiander. The Son, how the image of the Father. The order of subsistence and operation in the Trinity. Christ, how the head of angels and men. § 19. The image of God in man, wherein it consisted. § 20. How Adam was made in the image of Christ, and Christ made in the image of Adam. § 21. The incarnation, how occasioned by the fall. § 22. The Son of God, the head of angels and men, had not sin entered into the world. § 23. No sacrifices in the state of innocence. Bellarmin’s arguments for the necessity of a proper sacrifice in all religion. § 24. The mass not proved a sacrifice thereby. ‘The use and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in our religion. § 25. Ananswer to Bellarmin’s arguments, His general assertion overthrown by his own instances. § 26. The conclusion.
§ 1. Wz have seen that Jesus Christ is a priest, that as such he was prophesied of under the Old Testament, and that he is declared so to be in the New. The origin of this office, is in the next place to be inquired after, This all will acknowledge in general, to lie in the eternal counsels of God. For known unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world, Acts xv. 18. But these counsels, absolutely considered, are hid in God, in the eternal treasures of his own wisdom and will.. What we learn of them is by external revelation and effects. ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed be- Jong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law, Deut. xxix. 29. God frequently sets bounds to the curiosity of men, as in the station at Sinai, limits are fixed to the people that they should not gaze after his unrevealed glory, nor pry into the things which they have not seen. It was well said, that Scrutator Majestatis absorbetur a Gloria. Our work is to inquire wherein, how, and whereby God hath revealed his eternal counsels, to the end that we may know his mind, and fear Him for our good. And so even the angels desire to bow down, and to look into these things, 1 Pet. 1. 12, not in a way of condescension, as things in their nature beneath them, but in a way of humble diligence, as into things which in their holy contrivance are above them. Our present design therefore, is to trace those discoveries which God hath made of his eternal counsels in this matter, and that through the several degrees of divine revelation whereby he advanced the knowledge of it, until he brought them to their complement in the external exhibition of his Son, clothed in human nature, with the glory of this office, and discharging the duties thereof.
§ 2. The counsels of God concerning us, with our relation to him and his worship, are suited to the state and condition wherein we are; for these also are effects of his counsels. Our first condition under the law of creation was a condition of innocence and natural righteousness. In reference to this estate, God had not ordained an establishment of either priest or sacrifice; for as they would have been of no use therein, so there was nothing supposed in that condition, which might be prefigured or represented by them. Wherefore God did not preordain the priesthood of Christ with respect to the obedience of man under the law of creation; nor did he appoint either priesthood or sacrifice, properly so called in that state of things, whilst it did continue; nor would any such have ever been, supposing it had continued. And this we must confirm against the opposition of some.
§ 3. We have declared in our preceding discourse, that a priest, properly so called, is a sacrificer. There is, therefore, an indissoluble relation between these two, namely, priesthood and sacrifice; and they do mutually assert or deny each other. And where the one is proper, the other is so also; and where the one is metaphorical, so is the other. Thus, under the Old Testament, the priests who were properly so by office, had proper carnal sacrifices to offer; and under the New Testament, belieyers being made priests unto God, in a spiritual and metaphorical sense, their sacrifices also are spiritual and metaphorical. Wherefore, arguments against either of these, conclude equally against both. Where there are no priests there are no sacrifices; and where there are no sacrifices there are no priests; I intend only those who exercise the office of the priesthood for themselves and others. I shall, therefore, first manifest that there was no priesthood to be in the state of innocence, whence it would follow, that therein there could be no sacrifice. And secondly, That there was to be no sacrifice, properly so called; whence it will equally follow, that there was no priesthood therein. That which ensues on both is, That there was no counsel of God concerning either priesthood or saerifice in that state or condition.
every priest, properly-so called, καϑίσταται ὑπερ ἀνθρωπων, is ordained and appointed to act for other men. ΤῸ is set over a work in the behalf of those other men from_among whom he is taken. And this is, that he may take care of and perform τὰ προς roy ov, the things that for men are to be done with God, pn>x7 51; that is, to pacify, to make atonement and reconciliation. And this he was to do by offering δωρα τε καὶ Suotac, various sorts of gifts and sacrifices, according to God's appointment. Now, all slain sacrifices, as we shall manifest afterwards, were for sin. This office, therefore, could have no place in the state of innocence: for a state of innocence will not admit of an accommodation of any part of this description of the priesthood.
§ 5. I acknowledge that in the state of uncorrupted nature, there should have been some ὑπερ του Θεου, τα προς Tove ανθρωπους; to deal with others for and in the name of God; for some would have been warranted and designed to instruct others in the knowledge of God, and of his will. This, the state and condition of mankind did require. For, both the first relation of man and wife, and that which was to ensue thereon, of parents and children, include subordination and dependence. ‘The head of the woman is the man,’ 1 Cor. xi. 3, that is, the husband, Eph. v. 23. And the duty of the man it had been to instruct the woman in the things of God. For a pure nescience of many things that might be known to the glory of God and their own advantage, was not inconsistent with that estate; and their knowledge was capable of objective enlargements. And the design of God was gradually to instruct them in the things that might orderly carry them on to the end for which they were created. And in this, the man would have been used for the instruction of the woman, as the order of nature required. Jor man was originally the head of the woman; only upon the curse, natural dependence was turned into troublesome subjection, Gen. 1. 16. But the entrance of sin, as it contained in it the seeds of all disorder, so it plainly began in the destruction of this order: for the woman, undertaking to learn the mind of God from herself and the serpent, was deceived, and was first in the transgression, 1 Tim. 11. 13, 14, ‘ Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” From Adam’s being first formed, and the woman out of him, and for him, she from this should have learned her dependence on him for instruction, by divine institution. But going to learn the mind of God of the serpent, she was deceived. She might have learned more than she yet knew, but this she should have learned of him who was her head by the law of creation. This case is the same as to the other relation that would have been between parents and children: yea, in this the dependence was far greater, and more absolute. For, although the woman was made out of the man, which argues subordination and dependence, yet she was made by the immediate power of God, man contributing no more to her being than the dust did to his. This gave them in general an equality. But children are so of their parents, as to be wholly from them, and by them. This makes their dependence and subjection absolute and universal. And, whereas parents were in all things to seek their good, which was one of the prime dictates of the law of nature; they were in the name and stead of God, to rule, govern, and instruct them; and that in the knowledge of God, and of their duty towards him. They were ὑπερ Θεου, for God, ox in his stead to them, to instruct them in their duty, suitably to the law of their creation and the end thereof. But every one thus instructed, was in his own name and person to attend to the things of God, or to what was to be performed on the part of men For, in reference to God, there would have been no common root or principle for men to stand upon. Whilst we were all in the loins of Adam, we stood all in him, and we also fell all in him, ¢¢’ ᾧ παντες npaprov, Rom. v. 12. But so soon as any one should have been born into this world, and so should have had a personal subsistence of his own, he was to stand by himself, and to be no more as to his covenant interest, concerned in the obedience of his progenitors. For the covenant of mankind would have been distinct with each individual, as it was with angels. There might have been, there would have been order, subordination, and subjection among men in respect of things from God unto them. So, probably, there is among the angels, although the investigation thereof be neither our duty nor in our power. But as was said, every one according to the tenor of the covenant then in force, was in his own person to discharge all duties of worship towards God. Neither could any one be taken from the rest of mankind, to discharge the works of religion towards God for them, in the way of an office, for this would have been to the prejudice of their right, and to the hindrance of their duty. It follows, therefore, that the office of a priest, or of one who should be ordained ὑπερ ανϑρωπων ra προς τον Θεὸν; was inconsistent with the nature of that condition: and had any such office been possible, there would not have been in it any prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, as will afterwards appear.
§ 6. The same is the state of things with reference unto sacrifices. There is, as was said before, a relation between them and the priesthood. Hence is that saying in Bereshith. Rabb. 1273 13 M3702, as is the altar of sacrifice, so are the priests that belong unto it. And by sacrifices in this inquiry, we understand those that are properly so; for that which is proper in every kind, is first. Nor is there any place for that which is improper, or metaphorical, unless something proper, from whence the denomination is taken, have preceded; for an allusion thereunto doth the metaphor consist. Now the first possible instance in this matter, being in the state about which we inquire, there must be proper sacrifices therein, or none at all; for nothing went before, with respect whereunto any thing might be so called; as now our spiritual worship and service is, with allusion unto them under the Old Testament.
And concerning these sacrifices, we may consider their nature and their end. A sacrifice is M23: that is, Svea, ‘ victima; sacrificilum mactatum arr | slain or killed offering; yea, the first proper signification of M21 is ‘mactavit, jugulavit, decollavit, occidit; to kill, to slay by the effusion of blood, and the like. Neither is this signification derived from its affinity to Mw, to kill or slay, (the change of © and j being frequent, as in the Chaldee it is almost perpetual) but it is its own native signification. Gen. xxxi. 54, mai apy? mam. Say we, Jacob offered sacrifices. Junius, ‘ Mactavit animalia,’ He slew beasts; which we follow in the margin, he killed beasts. Targum, 8NDD) Ay. DDI). _-OD2 is to kill or slay, and is constantly so used; and NND23 is no more than ‘mactatio, a slaughter; but because all sacrifices were offered by slaying, it is applied to signify a sacrifice also; so Isa. xxxiy. 6. It is true, there was a covenant made between Jacob and Laban; and covenants were sometimes confirmed by sacrifices with a feast of the covenanters ensuing thereon. But it is not hkely that Jacob and Laban would agree in the same sacrifice, who scarcely gwned the same God. It is therefore only the provision and entertainment that Jacob made for Laban and his company, for which he slew the cattle, that is intended. Otherwise the sacrifice would have been mentioned distinctly from the feast. So are these things expressed; Exod. xviii. 12. And so M37 is rendered by us to. kill or slay absolutely, 1 Sam. xxviii. 24; Deut. xii. 15, 16; 1 Kings xix. 21. i. 9, and so also ought it to be translated Numb. xxii. 40, where in our version it is offered. 23 the substantive is also ‘mactatio, jugulatio, occisio:’ so Isa. xxxiv. 6; Zeph. 1. 7, which James expresseth by σφαγὴ chap. v. 5. And 0°m3} are absolutely no more than σφαγια; as from the slaughtering of the sacrifices, the altar is called Mat. Ovw also, and Svova, do no otherwise signify, but to sacrifice, or sacrifice by mactation or killing.
§ 7 It is therefore evident, that there neither is nor can be any sacrifice, properly so called, but what is made by killing or slaying of the thing sacrificed: And the offerings of inanimate things under the law, as of flour, or wine, or the fruits of the earth, were improperly so called, in allusion unto, or by virtue of their conjunction with proper sacrifices. They might be my offerings or ascensions, but D‘733 sacrifices they were not: And the act of sacrificing doth principally consist in the mactation or slaying of the sacrifices, as shall afterwards be manifested. And whereas the word oblation, when used about sacrifice, is commonly apprehended to ccnsist in the actings of the sacrificer after the killing of the sacrifice or victim; it is so far otherwise, that it principally consists in bringing of it to be slain, and in the slaying itself; all that follows belonging to the religious manner of testifying faith and obedience thereby. This also discovers the proper and peculiar end of sacrifices, properly so called; especially such as might prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, to which our present discourse is confined. All such sacrifices must respect sin, and an atonement to be made for it. There never was, nor ever can be, any other end of the effusion of blood in the service of God. This the nature of the action, (quod in ejus caput sit) and the whole series of divine institutions in this matter do manifest. For to what end should a man take a creature which is in his possession, which also he might use to his advantage, and slaying it, offer it up unto God; if not to confess his guilt, or somewhat for which he deserved to die; and to represent a commutation of the punishment due unto him, by the substitution of another in his place, according to the will of God? And this showeth that no sacrifice which could be prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ, could be offered in paradise, or in a state of imnocence. For as there should have been there no bloody mactation of our fellow-creatures, so a supposition of sin there implies an express contradiction:
§ 8. Again, Sacrifices require faith in the offerer of them, Heb. xi. 4. By faith Abel offered a sacrifice. And faith in the subject respects its proper object, which is divine revelation. Men can believe no more with divine faith than is revealed, and all our actings in faith must answer the doctrines of faith. Now, it can never be proved that sacrifices were revealed before the fall. And there was no doctrine belonging to the covenant of creation, that directly or analogically required or intimated an acceptance of any such religious worship as sacrifices, This might be manifested by a just consideration of the principles of that revelation, which God made of himself unto man under the first covenant, and what was necessary for him to know, that he might live unto God. But |this I have done at large elsewhere, nor have I any thing of moment to add unto former discourses to this purpose. And this also renders it impossible that there should be any sacrifices properly so called, and prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ in the state of innocence.
§ 9. But these things are opposed, and must be vindicated. _ And this opposition is made unto both the positions laid down, the one concerning a priest, the other concerning sacrifices. For some have been, and are of a mind, that if man had not sinned, yet the Son of God would have taken our nature on him, both for the manifestation of the glory of God, and for the cherishing of the creation. And if so, he should have been in some sense the priest of the world.;
And those of this persuasion are of two sorts: First, Such as acknowledge a pre-existence of the Lord Christ in a divine nature. These affirm, that though sin had not entered into the world, he should have been so made flesh, by the uniting of our nature unto himself in his own person, as now it is come to pass. This some of the ancient schoolmen inclined unto; as Alexander ab Alez. Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Rupertus. As it is opposed by Aquinas, P. 3. Q. 3. ‘Bonaventura in Sentent.’ lib 3, dist. 1. Ar. 2, Q. 1.; and others. Immediately on the Reformation, this opinion was revived by Osiander, who maintained that Adam was said to be made in the image of God, because he was made in that nature and shape in which the Son of God was to be manifested. And he also was herein opposed by Calvin, Institut. lib. 2, cap. 12. lib. 3, cap. 11, by Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23, and Schusselkburgius, lib. 6. Yet some are still of this judgment, or seem so to be.
The other sort are the Socinians, who contend that God would have given such a head to the creation, as they fancy Christ to be. Foras they lay no great weight on the first sin, so they hope to evince by this means, that the Lord Christ may discharge his whole office, without making any atonement for sin by sacrifice. And this, with most of their other opinions, they have borrowed from the ancient Pelagians, as may be seen from the account given by Cassianus, ‘de Incarnatione, lib. 1, p. 1241. ‘Quo factum est,’ saith he of the Pelagians, ‘ut in majorem quoque ac monstruosiorem insaniam prorumpentes, dicerent Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, hune in mundum, non ad prestandam humano generi redemptionem, sed ad prehenda bonorum actuum exempla venisse; videlicet ut disciplinam ejus sequentes homines, dum per eandem virtutis viam incederent, ad eadem virtutum premia pervenirent.’ Those who assert sacrifices to have been necessary in the state of innocence, are the Romanists. Bellarmin, Gregory de Valentia, with others, do expressly contend for it; and these also have their peculiar design in this their peculiar opinion. For they endeavour to establish a general maxim, that proper sacrifices are indispensably necessary unto all religious worship, thereby to make way for their oblation of the mass. I shall consider the pretences of both sorts, and so proceed with our design.
§ 10. As to the first opinion, concerning the incarnation of the Son of ‘God without respect to sin and redemption, there are many pretences given unto it, which shall be afterwards particularly considered. They say, ‘ That the manifestation of the glory of God, required that he should effect this most perfect way of it, that so he might give a complete expression of his image and likeness. His love and goodness also were thus to be perfectly represented in the union of a created nature with his own. And herein also God would satisfy himself in the contemplation of this full communieation of himself unto our nature. Besides, it was necessary that there should be a head appointed to the whole creation, to conduct and guide it, man especially, to its utmost end.’ And sundry other things they allege out of their own imaginations. It is granted, that even in that state, all immediate transactions with the creatures should have been by the Son. For
_ by him, as the power and wisdom of God, were they made, John i. 3; Heb. i. 2; Col. 1. 16, 17. He therefore should have immediately guided and conducted man to his happiness, and that both by confirming him in his obedience, and by giving him his reward. Of this we have an express proof in the case of the angels that sinned not. But for the opinion of his being incarnate, without respect to redemption from sin and misery, the whole of it is ἄγραφον, ΟΥ̓́Κ unwritten, and therefore uncertain and curious; yea avriypagoy, or contrary to what is written, and therefore false; and adoyov, or destitute of any solid spiritual reason for the confirmation of it.
§ 11. First. It is unwritten: it is nowhere revealed, nowhere mentioned in the Scripture: nor can it be shown, that this is the faith of any one of the saints of God, either under the Old Testament or the New. The first promise, and consequently first revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God, was after the entrance of sin, and has respect to the recovery of the sinner, to the glory of God. And by this all other promises, declarations, and revelations concerning it, as to their end, are to be regulated. For that which is the first in any kind, as to an end aimed at, is the rule of all that follows in the same kind. And therefore that on which men ground this opinion, is indeed neither argument nor testimony, but conjecture and curiosity. They frame to themselves a national state of things, which they suppose beautiful and comely, (as who are not enamoured with the fruits of their own imaginations?) and then they assert, that it was meet and according to divine wisdom, that God should so order things to his own glory, as they have fancied. Thus they suppose, that without respect to sin or grace, God would take to himself the glory of uniting our nature by him. Why so? Because that they find how greatly and gloriously he is exalted in his so doing. But does this proceed absolutely from the thing itself, or is it with respect to the causes, ends, effects, and circumstances of it, as they are stated since the entrance of sin, and’ revealed in the Scripture? Set aside the consideration of sin, grace, and redemption, with what attends them, and a man may say in a better compliance with the harmony and testimony of Scripture, that the assumption of human nature ito union with the Divine, in the person of the Son of God, is no way suited to the exaltation of divine glory, but rather to beget false notions and apprehensions in men of the nature of the Godhead, and to disturb them in their worship thereof. For the assumption of human nature absolutely, is expressed as a great condescension, as it was indeed, Phil. ii. 7—9, and as that which for a season obscured the glory of the Deity in him that assumed it, John xvi. 5. But the glory of it lies in that which caused it, and that which ensued thereon. For in them lay the highest effects and manifestations of divine love, goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness, Rom. iii. |
24-26. And this is plainly revealed in the gospel, if any thing be so. 1 fear therefore that this curious speculation that is thus destitute of any Scriptural testimony, is but a pretence for being wise above what is written, and a prying into things which men have not seen, and which are not revealed unto them.
§ 12. Secondly. This opinion is contradictory to the Scripture, and that in places innumerable. Nothing is more fully and perspicuously revealed in the Scripture, than are the causes and ends of the incarnation of Chmist. For as it is the great display of the glory of God, the foundation of all that obedience which we yield to him, and of all our expectation of blessedness with him, and being a thing in itself deep and mysterious, it was necessary that it should be fully revealed and declared. It were endless to se all the testimonies which might be produced to this purpose; some few only shall be produced. First then, on the part of the Father, the sending of the Son to be incarnate, is constantly ascribed to his love to mankind, that they might be saved from sin and misery, with a respect to the promoting thus his own glory, as the ultimate end. John iii. 16, ‘ God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rom. iti. 25, ‘ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.’ Chap. v. 8, ‘God commendeth his love unto us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Chap. vil. 3, ‘ For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, 1 Johniv. 8; Gal. iv. 5, 6. Secondly. On the part of the Son himself, the same causes, the same ends of his taking flesh are constantly assigned. Luke xix. 10, The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost. 1 Tim. 1. 15, ‘ This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.’ Heb. ii. 14, ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” Gal. ii. 20; John xviii. 38, ‘To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth; namely, of the promises of God made unto the fathers concerning his coming: see Rom. xv. 8; Phil. ii. 6—10. And all this is said in pursuit and in explication of the first promise concerning him, the sum whereof was, that he should be manifested in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil, as it is expounded, 1 John iii. 8. Τὸ this the whole Scripture constantly and uniformly giveth testimony: this is the design and scope of all its instructions: and the opposite doctrine, like the fancying of other worlds, or of living wights in the moon or stars, dissolves the whole harmony of it, and flustrates its principal design; and therefore is more carefully to be avoided, than what contradicts only some few testimonies of it. I say, that to ascribe unto God a will or purpose of sending his Son to be incarnate, without respect to the redemption and salvation of sinners, is to contradict and enervate the whole design of the revelation of God in the Scripture, as also it riseth up in direct opposition to particular testimonies without number. Origen observed this, Homil. 24, in Numer: ‘Si non fuisset peccatum, non necesse fuerat Filium Dei Agnum fieri; sed mansisset hoc quod in principio erat, Deus verbum. Verum quoniam introiit peccatum in hunc mundum, peccati autem necessitas propitiationem requirit, propitiatio vero non fit nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit provideri hostiam pro peccato. ‘If sin had not been, there would have been no necessity that the Son of God should be made a Lamb, but he had remained what he was in the beginning, God the Word. But seeing that sin entered into the world, and stood in need of a propitiation, which could not be but bya sacrifice, it was necessary that a sacrifice for sin should be provided. So Austin, Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli, Tom. 10. ‘ Quare venit in mundum, peccatores salvos facere. Alia causa non fuit, quare veniret in mundum.’
§13. Thirdly, This opinion is destitute of spiritual reason, yea is contrary to it. The design of God to glorify himself in the creation, and by the law or covenant of it, and his design to glorify himself in a way of grace, are distinct. Yea, they are so distinct, as with reference to the same persons and times to be inconsistent. This our apostle manifests in the instance of justification and salvation by works and grace. ‘If it be by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise works is no more works, Rom. xi. 6. It is impossible that the same man should be justified by works and by grace too. Wherefore God, in infinite wisdom, brought the first design, and all the effects of it, into a subordination to the latter, and so he decreed to do from eternity. There being, by the entrance of sin, an aberration in the whole creation from that proper end, for following which it was formed at first, it pleased God to reduce the whole into a suhserviency to the design of his wisdom and holiness in a way of grace. For his purpose was to make reconciliation, and to gather all things into a new head in his Son Jesus Christ, Eph. i. 10; Heb. i. 3., ii. 7, 8. Now, according to this opinion, the incarnation of the Son of God belonged originally unto the law of creation, and to the design of displaying the glory of God therein. And if this were so, it must with the whole old creation, and with all that belonged to it, be brought into a subordination and subserviency to the succeeding design of the wisdom of God, to glorify himself in a way of grace. But this is not so, seeing this itself is the fundamental and principal part of that design. Known indeed unto God are all his works from the beginning. ‘Therefore this great projection of the incarnation of his Son, lymg in the council of his will from eternity, he did, in wisdom infinite and holy, order all the concerns of the creation in such a manner, that they might be disposed into an orderly subjection to his Son incarnate. So that, although Ε deny that any thing was then instituted as a type to represent him, because his coming into the world in our flesh belonged not unto that estate, yet I grant things to have been so ordered, as that in the restoration of all into a new frame by Jesus Christ, there were many things in the works of God in the old creation, that were natural types, or things meet to represent much of this unto us. So Christ himself is called the second Adam, and compared to the tree of life, of which we have discoursed in our exposition on the first chapter. Ἷ
§ 14. Let us therefore now consider the arguments or reasons in particular which they plead who maintain this assertion. The principal of them were invented or used by some of the ancient schoolmen; and others have since somewhat improved their conceptions, and added some of their own. Those of the first sort are collected by Thomas, 3* P. Q. 1, A. 3, as derived from the Pelagians. I shall examine them as by him proposed, omitting his answers, which I judge insufficient in many instances.
His first argument, the substance whereof I have lately heard pleaded
with some vehemence, is as follows: ‘It belonged to omnipotent Power and infinite Wisdom, to make all his works perfect, and to manifest himself by an infinite effect. But no mere creature can be said to be such an infinite effect, because its essence is finite and limited; but in the work of the incarnation of the Son of God alone, an infinite effect of divine power seems to be manifested, as things infinitely distant are thus conjoined, God being made man. And herein the universality of things seems to receive its perfection, inasmuch as the last creature or man, is immediately conjoined unto the first principle or God.’ ᾿
Answer. This argument hath little more in it than curiosity and sophistry. For,
1. That God made all his works good, that is perfect in their kind, before the incarnation, we have his own testimony. He saw and pronounced of the whole, that it was 781 219, valde bonum, every way good and complete.
_ It was so in itself, without the addition of that work, which is fancied necessary to its perfection.
2. It is merely supposed, that it was necessary that divine omnipotence should be expressed to the utmost of its perfection. It was enough that it was manifested and declared in the creation of all things out of nothing.
3. It is not possible that any effect in itself infinite, should be produced by the power of God. For then would there be two infinites, the producing and the produced; and, consequently, two Gods, the making God and the made: for that which is in itself absolutely infinite is God, and what is produced is not infinite. Wherefore the work of the incarnation was not of itself an infinite effect, although it were an effect of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness. And so also was the work of the first creation. And although they are all in themselves finite and limited, yet are they the effects of, and do abundantly declare, the infinite power and wisdom whence they were educed, Rom. i. 21, 22.
4, The perfection of the universe, or of the universality of beings, is to be determined by their state, condition, and end. And this perfection they had in their first creation, without any respect unto the incarnation of the Son of God. For the perfection of all things consisted in their relation to God, according to the law and order of their creation, and their mutual regard to one another, with respect to the utmost end of the manifestation of his glory. And their perfection also consisted in their suitableness to bring that creature to the enjoyment of God in blessedness for ever, who was capable of it. And herein consisted the conjunction of the last creature to the first principle, when by the documents and helps of the creation which existed before he was formed, he was brought to the enjoyment of God. For,
4, That the conjunction of the last creature to the first principle, by way of personal union, was necessary for the good of the universe, is a fancy that every one may embrace, and every one may reject at pleasure. But it may be justly conceived, that it was more suitable unto order, that the conjunction mentioned should have been between God and the first creature, namely the angels; and reasons would have been pleaded for that order, had it so come to pass. But the Son of God took not on him their nature, because, he designed not to deliver them from sin, Heb. 11, 16, 17. § 15. Secondly, It is further pleaded, ‘That human nature is not become
more capacious of grace by sin than it was before. But now after the entrance of sin, it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Wherefore if man had not sinned, human nature had been capable of this grace. Neither would God have withheld any good from human nature whereof it was capable; therefore, if man had not sinned, God had been incarnate.’
Answ. 1. Place angelical nature in the argument, as to that part of it which pleads that it must have all the grace which it is capable of, mstead of human nature, and the event will show what force there is in this ratiocination. For angelical nature was capable of the grace of union, and God would not withhold any thing from it whereof it was capable. But why then is it otherwise come to pass?
2. It must be granted, though indeed this argument is not very applicable either in the one way or the other, that human nature is both capable of more grace, and actually made partaker of more after the fall, than it was capable of, or did receive before. For it is capable of mercy, pardon, reconciliation with God, sanctification by the Holy Ghost, all which are graces, or gracious effects of the love and goodness of God; and of these things in the state of innocence, man was not capable. Besides, there is no difference in this matter; for the individual nature actually assumed into union was, and was considered, as pure in its first origin and creation.
3. The ground of this reason lies in this pretence, that whatever any creature was capable of, not in, by, or from itself, but by the power of God, God was obliged to do that, in it and for it. Now this is plainly to say, that God did not communicate of his goodness, and of his power to the creatures according to the counsel of his will, but producing them by the unavoidable destiny of some eternal fate, he acted naturally and necessarily, ad ultimum virium, in their production. But this is contrary to the nature and being of God, with all the properties thereof. Wherefore the creation is capable in every state of what God pleaseth, and of no more. Its capacity is to be regulated by the will of God. And no more belonged to its capacity in the state of nature, than God had assigned to it by the law of creation.
4. It is a presumptuous imagination to talk of the grace of union being due to our nature in any condition. Why then is it not due to the nature of angels? Or did our nature originally excel theirs? Besides, the Scripture every where expressly mentions this union as an effect of free love, grace, and bounty, John iii. 16; 1 John iy. 9, 10.
5. That by the entrance of sin, both the display of the glory of God, and the good of the creature itself, should be heightened, is an effect of infinite wisdom and grace. Nor did God permit the entrance of sin, but with a design to bring about a glory greater and more excellent than the antecedent order of things was capable of. The state of grace exceeded the state of nature. In brief, God permitted that greatest evil, the fall of man, to make way for the introduction of the greatest good in our restoration by the incarnation and mediation of his Son.
§ 16. Thirdly, it is also pleaded, ‘That the mystery of the incarnation was revealed unto Adam in the state of innocence. For upon the bringing of Eve unto him, he said, ‘This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.’ But this,’ saith the apostle, ‘is a great mystery; but he speaks it concerning Christ and the church,’ Eph. v. 32. But man could not foresee nor foreknow his own fall, any more than the angels could theirs. It follows, therefore, that he considered the incarnation as it should have been, had the state of innocence continued.’
Answ. 1. It seems to be supposed in this argument that there was indeed a revelation made unto Adam, Gen. ii. 23, of the incarnation of Christ, so that nothing remains to be proved, but that he did not foreknow his fall; whence it would ensue that the pretended revelation belonged to | the state of innocence. But, indeed, there is no intimation of any such reyvelation. For,
2. I have manifested elsewhere, how God in his infinite wisdom ordered the things of the first creation, so as they might afterwards be made to subserve in a way of representation to the new creation, or to the renovation of all things by Jesus Christ. That is, he so made them, as that they might be natural types, of what he would do afterwards. This doth not prove, that they were designed to make any revelation of Christ or of his grace, or to prefigure them; but only that they were meet to be brought into an useful subordination to them, so that from them, instructive allusions might be taken. Thus it was in the first marriage, in the law of creation. It had no other nature, use, nor end, but to be the bond of individual society of two persons male and female, for the procreation and education of children, with all mutual assistances to human life and conversation. And the making of woman out of the man, ‘ bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, was intended only for laying the foundation of that society, whose intimacy was to be unparalleled. But both these things were so ordered in the wisdom of God, as that they might represent another union in a state that God would bring in afterwards, namely of Christ and his church. What Adam spake concerning the natural condition and relation of him and Eve, that our apostle speaks concerning the spiritual and supernatural condition and relation of Christ and the church, because of some resemblance between them. Aquinas himself determines this whole matter, with an assertion to which it would have been for his own advantage to have attended upon other occasions. Saith he, ‘Ea que ex Sola Dei voluntate proveniunt supra omne debitum creature, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde cum in sacra Scriptura ubique Incarnationis Ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur Incarnationis-opus ordinatum esse a Deo in commodum contra peccatum, quod peccato non existente incarnatio non fuisset.’
§ 17. There is yet another argument mentioned by Aquinas, and much urged by the modern Scotists; it is insisted on also by some divines of our own; which deserves somewhat a fuller consideration. And this is taken from the predestination of the Man Christ Jesus. This the schoolmen consider on that of our apostle, Rom. i. 4, ‘concerning Jesus Christ, ὁρισϑεέντος viov Θεοῦ ev δυνάμει, which the Vulgate renders, Qui preedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute: ‘ Predestinated the Son of God with power, as our Rhemists. But ὁρισϑέντος there, is no more than αἀποδειχθεντος, ‘manifested, declared,’ as it is well rendered by our’s. Nor can expositors fix any tolerable sense to their ‘predestinated’ in this place. But the thing itself is true. The Lord Christ was predestinated or pre-ordained before the world was. We were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, προεγνωσμένου προ κατα- ξολης κοσμου, 1 Pet. 1. 20, ‘ Fore-ordained, predestinated before the foundation of the world.’ Now it is pleaded, that this predestination of Christ to the grace of union and glory, was the first of God’s purposes and decrees, in order of nature, and antecedent to the predestination of the elect, at least as it should comprise in it a purpose of deliverance from the fall. For God first designed to glorify himself in the assumption of human nature, before he decreed to save the elect by that nature so assumed. For we are said to be chosen in him, that is, as our head, Ephes. 1. 4, whence it necessarily ensues that he was chosen before us; and so without respect unto us. So in all things was he to have the pre-eminence, Col. i. 19. And thence it is that we are ‘predestinated to be conformed to his image,’ Rom. viii. 29. This pre-ordination, therefore, of the Lord Christ, which was unto grace and glory, was antecedent to the permission of the fall of man, so that he should have been incarnate, though the fall had never taken place.
These things have been explained at large by other writers on the subject; but this is the sum of what is pleaded in the pursuit of this argument, which shall be examined as briefly as the nature of the matter itself will permit. |
1. In treating of the divine decrees, many authors have considered at large their priority one to another, in order of nature and reason. In using the phrase priority in order of nature, it is not of the decrees themselves that we speak, for these are all absolutely free and irrespective; but it is of the things decreed, which are arranged in such an order, that one should serve another. There are not a few, however, who suppose those discourses on all hands, to have more of nicety and curious subtilty, than of solid truth for edification. And because this is a matter on which the Scripture is utterly silent, though one opinion may be more agreeable to sound reason than another, yet none is built upon such certain foundations, as to become a matter of faith, or the principle of any thing that is so. That which explains this order most conveniently, and suitably to divine wisdom, will, and soyereignty; which best answers the common apprehensions of rational natures, and the rules of their actings; is to be preferred before any opinion, that includes what is opposite to, or alien from, any of those things to which that order hath respect. From any such order in the decrees of God, no support can be drawn to the opinion which is under consideration; but if men may be allowed to suppose what they will, they may easily infer from it what they please. Let us, therefore, take a view of the several series of divine decrees, which have been confirmed by the suffrage of a considerable number of learned men, setting aside particular conjectures, which were never received by any except their authors. And these may be reduced unto three. All agree, that the glory of God is the utmost and supreme end that he intendeth in all his decrees. Although they are free acts of his will and wisdom, yet on the supposition of the existence of these decrees, it is absolutely necessary from the perfection of his being, that he himself or his glory be their utmost end. His absolute all-sufficiency, will not allow that in them he should have any other end. Accordingly, in pursuit of them, ‘He makes all for himself, Proy. xvi. 4. And they serve to declare and make known the perfection of his nature, Ps. xix. 1; Rom. i. 19,20. And itis his glory in the way of justice and mercy, which he ultimately intends in his decrees concerning the salvation of man by Jesus Christ. Whereas many things are ordered by him in a subserviency hereunto, the decrees of God concerning them, are conceived of by some in that order which answers the order of this accomplishment. As, first, they say God decreed to make the world, and man therein upright in his image. Secondly, to permit the fall, and the consequences thereof, man being to that end left to the liberty of his will. Thirdly, he designed to send his Son to be incarnate for the work of their redemption. Fourthly, he decreed to give eternal life to as many as should believe on him and obey him. And lastly, he determined to bestow effectual grace on some persons in particular; to work faith and obedience in them infallibly, and thereby to bring them to glory, to the praise of his grace and mercy. According to this order of God's decrees, it is plain that in the order of nature, the predestination of Christ is antecedent unto the election of other particular or individual persons; but withal that it is consequential to the decree concerning the permission of the fall of Adam; and accordingly his incarnation doth suppose it; which is inconsistent with the opinion under examination. ‘ Others take a contrary course, and by misapplication of a common rule, that what is first in intention must be last in execution, they suppose that the order of God’s decrees (which are his intentions and purposes,) may be best conceived in a direct retrogradation to the order of their execution. Supposing, therefore, that God determines to glorify himself in the way before mentioned; they judge that his first decree in order of nature, is for the eternal salvation and glory of some certain persons, who are at last actually brought to glory. For this being the last thing executed, must be first intended. Secondly, in subserviency to this, he purposeth to give them grace, and faith, and obedience thereby, as the way to bring them to the possession of glory. Thirdly, To those purposes of God, they make the decrees concerning the creation, and the permission of the fall of man, with the incarnation and mediation of Christ, to be subservient, some in one method, some in another. But it is evident, that all their thoughts respecting a decree predestinating the incarnation of Christ, prior to any decree with respect to sin and grace, must be inconsistent.
As both these ways are exposed to insuperable objections, some have fixed on another method for the right conception of the order of God's eternal decrees in these things. This method is consistent in itself, and may be fairly vindicated from all opposition, which is the utmost that with sobriety can be aimed at in these things. The supporters of this scheme, set out with observing, that nothing should be ascribed to God which is in the least unsuited to the infinite perfections of his nature, nor any thing proposed to the minds of men which is inconsistent with the general principles and rules of reason. They also lay down the general rule before mentioned; namely, that what is first in intention is last in execution.. But secondly, they say withal, that this rule concerns only such things, as in their own nature and in the will of him that designs them, have to one another the relation of end and means. For this rule has no place among such things as are not capable of that relation. Moreover it is required that this end be ultimate and supreme, and not subordinate, for a subordinate end is also of the nature of means. The meaning of the rule then is no more than this, that in all rational purposes, there are two things considered: First the end aimed at, and then the means of its accomplishment. And that in the order of nature, the end, which is the last thing effected, is first designed, and then the means for it; which things are true and obvious to the understanding of all men. According to this rule, they ascribe to God only two decrees that have any order of priority between them. ‘The first is concerning his end which is first intended, and last executed. The other is concerning all those means, which though second in order, being intended for ‘the production of the end, are first accomplished and wrought. The first of these decrees respects the supreme end of all the dispensations of God, towards the things that are outward of him; this supreme end is his own glory, ox,the declaration of himself in a way of justice and mercy, mixed with infinite wisdom and goodness, as he is the first Being, Sovereign Lord and Ruler over all. The second decree respects things subordinate and subservient to the former, and consists in an intention concerning all intermediate acts ef divine wisdom, power and goodness, which tend to the production of this ultimate end. Such are the creation, the permission of the fall, the pre-ordination of Christ, and others in him to grace and glory, by the way and means thereunto appointed. Now although these things are evidently subordinate, and subservient to one another, and although separate decrees concerning them may be conceived of, yet, because none of them do lie in the order of means and ultimate end, there is no priority of one decree before another to be allowed therein. Only a decree is supposed, for arranging them in their execution; or for disposing of the things to be executed, into that order both in nature and time, which may constitute them all one suitable means of attaining the supreme end intended. Now it is evident that according to this order, there cannot be a priority in the pre-ordination of Christ, to the decree of the permission of the fall and entrance of sin.:
It is true indeed, Christ was pre-ordained, or the Son of God was preordained, to be incarnate before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. i. 20. But how? Even ‘as he was manifested in the last times.’ As he was preordained to be incarnate, so he was to be born of the blessed virgin: and this neither was nor could be, but with respect unto the redemption of mankind; for he took flesh of her, in answer to the first promise concerning the seed of the woman, which respected our recovery from sin. As he was born or made of her, he was the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world. Besides, he was not ordained to the grace of union, before and without the consideration of glory and exaltation. But this included a supposition of his suffering for sin: for he was ‘first to suffer, and then to enter into his glory, Luke xxiv. 26. Accordingly he ordered his own prayer, John xvii. 4,5. ‘I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, and now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self.’ Neither Scripture nor reason, will allow us to suppose a pre-ordination of the Son of God to become incarnate without reference to the previous entrance of sin, or without réference to his being born of the blessed virgin, or without considering him as the Lamb of God, or without considering him as one to be exalted after suffering. It is said indeed that we are ‘predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ,’ Rom. vui. 29, which seems to imply an antecedency in his predestination unto our’s. But the ‘image of Christ’ there intended, includes his sufferings, holiness, and exaltation to glory after his obedience, all which have respect to sin and redemption. And moreover the predestination here intended, is subordinate to our election to glory, being our designation to the assured and infallible means thereof, Eph. i. 4, 5. It is true it was the design of God, that he in all things should have the pre-eminence, Col. i. 18, and as this denotes excellency, worth, use, dignity, supremacy, nearness to God for the receiving, and to us for the communicating of all good; so it can have no respect to such a pre-ordination, as would imply his incarnation without an intention of glorifying God in the redemption of sinners; which alone we have undertaken to disprove.
§ 18. The arguments of Osiander in this case have been discussed by others.* I shall notice these arguments, only so far as is necessary to our present design, and that in those instances in which they have no coincidence with what hath been already discussed. And some few things may be premised, which will take away the suppositions on which all his reasonings are founded. As,
1. The Son was the essential and eternal image of the Father, antecedent to all consideration of his incarnation. He is in his divine person the ‘image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15. ‘The brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,’ Heb: 1. 3. For having his essence and subsistence from the Father by eternal generation, or the communication of the whole divine nature, and of all its infinite perfections, he is the perfect and essential representation of him.
2. The order of operation in the blessed Trinity as to outward works, answers to and follows the order of their subsistence. Hence the Son is considered as the next and immediate operator of them. Thus, as he is said to have made all things, John 1. 3; Col. i. 16, so the Father is said to make all things by him, Eph. 111. 9, not as an inferior, subordinate, instrumental cause; but as acting his wisdom and power in him to whom they were communicated by eternal generation. Hence the immediate relation of all things so made, is to the Son, and by and in his person, is God, even the Father, immediately represented to them, as he is his image, and as the brightness of his glory shines forth m him. Hereon follows his ‘ rejoicing in the creation, and his delights in the sons of men,’ Prov. viii. 30, 31, because of their immediate relation to him.
3. Therefore he would have been the immediate head and ruler of angels and men, if they had all persisted in their original integrity and innocence, Col. 1.16. For the representation of God to them, as the cause and as the end of their being, the object and end of their worship and service, should have been in and by his person as the image of the Father: and by and through him they should have received all the communications of God unto them. He should have been their immediate head, Lord and King, or the divine nature in his person. For this the order of subsistence in the blessed Trinity, and the order of operation thereon depending, did require.
These things being premised, it will not be difficult to remove out of our way, the reasons by which Osiander thought to prove, that Christ would have been incarnate, although sin had never entered into our world. We would not now have considered his reasonings, after they have been so long ago put to oblivion, were it not that they have been revived; and that the consideration of them will give occasion to the clearing of some truths not of small importance.
§ 19. First, Osiander’s principal plea was taken, from ‘the image of God wherein man was created.’ ‘For this, he saith, ‘was that human nature, consisting of soul and body, in the outward shape, lineaments and proportion which it hath in our persons, which the Son of God was to take upon him; God having ordained that his Son should take human nature, he created Adam in a conformity to the idea or image thereof.’
Answer. This doubtless is a better course for explaining creation in the image of God, than that of the old Anthropomorphites, who in the exposition of this expression, made God in the image of man. But yet it is not therefore according to the truth. The image of God in man was in general those excellencies of his nature, which made him superior to all other creatures here below. It particularly consisted in that uprightness and rectitude of his soul and of all its faculties, as one common principle of moral operation, by which he was enabled to live unto God as his chief good, and utmost end, Eccles. vii. 29. This by our apostle is termed ‘righteousness and true holiness, when he treats of the renovation of this image in us by Jesus Christ, Eph. iv. 24. To which he adds, (Col. iii. 10,) that which is the principle of them both in the renovation of our minds. Nor doth this image of God consist, as some fancy, in moral duties, in distinction from other duties, or in opposition to any other effect of the grace of Christ in the hearts of men, which acts itself in any other duty according to the will of God. To pray, to hear the word, to celebrate religious worship, they say, is no part of the image of God, because God doth none of those things, and an image must always correspond to that which it represents. But our likeness to God doth not consist in doing what God doeth, neither is his image in us in any thing more express than in our universal dependence on him, and resignation of ourselves to him, which is a thing of which the divine nature is incapable. And when we are commanded to ‘ be holy as he is holy,’ it is not a specific similitude, but analogical only that is intended. Wherefore, as the image ‘of God consists not in outward actions of any kind whatever, so the internal grace that is acted in prayer, hearing, and other acts of sacred worship according to the will of God, doth no less belong to the image of God, than any other grace, or duty, or virtue whatever. In like manner, faith also belongeth to the image of God, and that not only as it is an intellectual perfection, but also with respect to all its operations and effects, as the Lord Christ himself, and the promise of the gospel, are in their several considerations the objects of it. In our first creation, the image of God consisted in the concreated rectitude of our natures, by which we were disposed and enabled to live to God according to the law of our creation; and in this there was a great representation of his righteousness, or of the universal absolute rectitude οἵ the nature of him by whom we were made. In like manner, whatever is communicated to us by the grace of Jesus Christ, whereby our nature is repaired, disposed, and enabled to live to God, with all acts and duties suitable thereunto, according to the present law of our obedience, belongs to the restoration of the image of God’in us. In all the parts of this restoration, however, there always is a special respect to that spiritual light, understanding or knowledge, which is the directive principle of the whole; for the ‘new man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,’ Col. iii. 10. This therefore being the image of God, it is evident that in the creation of man in the image of God, there was no respect to the human nature of Christ, which, as the Son of God, he afterwards assumed Only it is granted, that we are both formed and reformed immediately in his image. For as he was and is, in his divine Person, the express image of the Father, the divine qualifications wherein the image of God originally consisted in us, were immediately wrought in us by him, as those wherein he would represent his own perfection. And in the restoration of this image to us, as God implanted in him incarnate, all fulness of that grace wherein it doth consist, and as he therein absolutely represents the invisible God to us, so we are transformed immediately into his likeness and image, and into that of God by him, 2 Cor. iii. 18.
§ 20. It is further pleaded, ‘That if the Son of God should not have been incarnate, if Adam had not sinned, then Adam was not made in the image of Christ, but Christ was made in the image of Adam.’
Answ, It has been declared that the image of God, in which Adam was made, consisted in the rectitude of the principles of Adam’s nature, with respect to the condition wherein, and to the end for which he was made. In this rectitude, there was a representation of the divine righteousness and holiness. And in some sense Christ may be said to be made in the image of Adam, inasmuch as he was made flesh, or partaker of the same nature with him. For ‘because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same,’ Heb. ii. 14. He ‘took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,’ Phil. 11. 7. And to this he was designed by God, even to take on him that nature in which Adam was created, and in which he sinned. He was to be ‘made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted,’ Heb. iv. 15. Thus his genealogy after the flesh is traced back by Luke to the first Adam, ch. ili. 38. As he is called not the first, or the exemplar of the creation of men, but the second Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 47, being to recover and restore what was lost by the first. Wherefore, in respect of the substance and essence of human nature, Christ was made in the image of Adam; but in respect of the endowments and holy perfections of that nature, he was made in the image of God.
§ 21. Moreover, it is objected, ‘That the incarnation of Christ was a thing decreed for itself, and as to its futurition depended only on the immutable counsel of God. But this supposition, that it had respect to the fall of man and to his recovery, makes it to depend on an external accident, and which as to the nature of the thing itself might not have been.’
Answ. The resolution of this objection depends much on what hath been before discoursed concerning the order of the divine decrees, which we need not here repeat. Only we may remember that the foresight of the fall, and the decree of the permission of it, cannot with any reason be supposed to be consequential to the decree concerning the incarnation of the Son of God. For the reparation of man is every where in the Scripture declared to be the end of Christ’s taking flesh. For in the ‘ fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them who were under the law,’ Gal. iv. 4. Neither can his incarnation be properly said either to be for itself on the one side, or by accident on the other. For it was decreed and fore-ordained for the glory of God. And the way whereby God intended to glorify himself therein was in our redemption, which in his infinite love to mankind was the moving cause thereof, John 11. 16. To the same effect is another objection, That if the Son of God had not been incarnate, neither angels nor men could have had their proper head and king. For as we have premised, the Son of God should have been the immediate head of the whole creation, ruling every thing in its subordination to God, suitably to the nature, state, and condition of the several parts of creation. For as he was the image of the invisible God, so he was the first-born of every creature, Col. i. 16; that is, the Lord, Ruler, and Inheritor of them, as we have at large elsewhere declared.
§ 22. It is pleaded, in the last place, ‘That had men continued in their integrity, there should have been a season when they were to be changed and translated into heaven. Now this being to be done by the Son of God, it was necessary that he should be incarnate for that purpose.’ This consideration is urged so far by Osiander. But it is carried on by the Socinians, and improved on another supposition of their own. Vid. Smal. Refut. Thes. Franzii. Disput. 12, p. 429. |
Man, they tell us, was created absolutely mortal, and should have actually died, although he had never sinned. That he might be raised again from the dead, God would have sent a Messiah, or one that should have been the means, example, and instrumental cause of our resurrection.
Answ. All persons of sobriety will acknowledge that there is nothing in these reasonings but groundless curiosities, and vain speculations countenanced with false suppositions. For as God alone knows what would haye been the eternal condition of Adam, had he not violated the covenant of his nature; so whatever change was to be effected in his condition as the reward of his obedience, God could have effected it by his infinite wisdom and power, without any such instrumental cause as these men imagine. Secret things belong to the Lord our God; nor are we to be wise above what is written. The notion of the Socinians that man would have died naturally, though not penally, is a figment of their own, that hath been elsewhere discussed, and is very unmeet to be laid as the foundation of new assertions, that cannot otherwise be proved.
From what hath been discbursed, it appears that there was no revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocence; neither did it belong to that state, but was designed in order to his priesthood, which could therein have no place nor use.
§ 23. Our next inquiry is concerning sacrifices, and whether they were to have had either place or use in the state of innocence. This being determined, the way will be cleared for fixing on its true foundation the origin of the priesthood of Christ, after which we are now making inquiry. And this inquiry is made necessary by some of the Roman church, particularly Bellarmin and Gregory de Valentia. They have not indeed fixed any special controversy in this inquiry, whether there should have been any sacrifices in the state of innocence. But in an attempt to serve a principal concern of their own, they assert and contend for that which determines the necessity of sacrifices in that state, and in the condition of things between God and men at that time. For they plead in general, that ‘there neither is, nor ever was in the world, nor can be any religion without a true and real sacrifice.’ Their design in this is only to prove the necessity of the sacrifice of the mass. For on this supposition it must be esteemed to be of the very essence of the Christian religion, which some, on the contrary, judge to be overthrown thereby. Now it is certain that there was religion, and that this religion would have continued in the state of innocence, if that state had continued. Yea, therein all religion and religious worship was founded, being in-laid in our natures, and requisite to our condition in this world, with respect to the end for which we were made. In the state of innocence, then, on this supposition, sacrifices were necessary; which Bellarmin includes in that Syllogism, as he calis it, whereby he attempts the proof of the necessity of his Missatical sacrifice in the church of Christ. ‘De Missa, lib. 1, cap. 20, Tanta,’ saith he, ‘ con-
junctio est inter Legem seu Religionem, et Sacrifictum externum ac proprie dictum, ut omnino necesse sit aut Legem et Religionem vere et proprie in Christi Ecclesia non reperiri, aut Sacrificium quoque externum et proprie dictum in Christi Ecclesia reperiri. Nullum autem est si Missam tollas; est igitur Missa Sacrificitum externum proprie dictum.’ ‘There is such a conjunction between the law or religion, and a sacrifice external and _properly so called, that it is altogether necessary, either that there is no law or religion truly and properly to be found in the church of Christ, or there is a sacrifice, external and properly so called, to be found therein. But take away the mass, and there is none. Wherefore the mass is an external sacrifice, properly so called.’
δ 24. The invalidity of this argument to his particular purpose may easily be laid open. For setting aside all consideration of his mass, the Christian religion hath not only in it a proper sacrifice, but it has that very one sacrifice, from respect to which, the services of men in divine worship in the Old Testament church were called sacrifices; and by which they were animated, and rendered useful. Tor the sacrifices of the law had no other end or use, but to prefigure that sacrifice which we enjoy in the Christian religion, and to exhibit the benefits thereof to the worshippers. This is the sacrifice of Christ himself, which was external, visible, proper, yea, the only true, real, substantial sacrifice, and that offered once for all. ᾿ And it is merely εξ ἀμετρία ανϑολκῆς, or an immeasurably corrupted imagination which led Bellarmin to put in his frivolous and captious exception, to the sufficiency of this sacrifice in the Christian religion. For he pretends and pleads that this sacrifice did not belong to the Christian church, which was founded in the resurrection of Christ, before which Christ had offered himself; as also that this sacrifice was but once offered, and now ceasethi so to be, so that if we have no other sacrifice but this, we have none at all. For, notwithstanding these bold and sophistical objections, our apostle sufficiently instructs us, that we have yet an High Priest, and an altar, and a sacrifice, and the blood of sprinkling, all in heavenly things and places. And, on purpose to prevent this cavil about this sacrifice not being offered again, he tells us that it is always ζωσα καὶ πρόσφατος, ‘living and new slain. And, beyond all contradiction he determined either this one sacrifice of Christ to be insufficient, or that of the mass to be useless. For he shows that where any sacrifices will make perfect them that come to God by them, there no more will be offered. And it is an undoubted evidence that no sacrifice hath obtained its end perfectly, as to making reconciliation for sin, where any other sacrifice properly so called doth come after it. Nor doth he prove the insufficiency of Aaronical sacrifices for this purpose, by any other argument, but that they were offered from year to year, and that another was to succeed in their room, when they were over, Heb. x. I1—5. And _ this, upon the supposition of the Romanist, and the necessity of their Missatical sacrifice, falls as heavily on the sacrifice of Christ, as on those of the law. It is apparent, therefore, that they must either let go the sacrifice of Christ as insufficient, or that of their mass as useless, for they can have no consistency in the same religion. Wherefore, they leave out the sacrifice of Christ, as that which was offered before the church was founded. But the truth is, the church was founded therein. And [ desire to know of these men, whether it be the outward act of sacrificing, or the efficacy of a sacrifice that is so necessary unto all religion? If it be the outward act that is of such use and necessity, how great was the privilege of the church of the Jews above that of the Romanists. For, whereas these pretend but unto one sacrifice, and that one so dark, obscure, and unintelligible, that the μυσται and exorrat of their Sacra cannot possibly agree amongst themselves what it is, nor wherein it doth consist. The Jews had many plain, express, visible sacrifices, which the whole church looked on, and consented in. But this whole pretence is vain; nor is any thing of the least worth in religion, but on the account of its efficacy to its end. And that we have with us the continual efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, in all our religious worship and approaches unto God, the Scripture is full and express. But these things do not belong to our present subject, the consideration of them will elsewhere occur.
» § 25. As to our present purpose, I deny the major proposition of Bellarmin’s Syllogism, if taken absolutely and universally, as it must be, if any way serviceable to his cause. This, therefore, he proves. ‘ Propositio,’ saith he, ‘prima probatur, primo ex eo quod fere omnis Religio seu vera seu falsa omni loco et tempore semper ad cultum Dei Sacrificia adhibuerit: Hine enim colligitur, id prodire ex lumine et instinctu Nature, et esse primum quoddam principium a Deo nobis ingenitum. ‘It is proved from hence that almost all religion, whether true or false, in all places and times, hath made use of sacrifices in the worship of God. For, hence it is gathered, that this proceeds from the light and instinct of nature, being a certain principle inbred in us from God himself’ And hereon he proceeds to confute Chemnitius, who assigned the origin of sacrificing among the heathen, to an instinct of corrupt nature, which is the root of all superstition. I shall not now inquire expressly into the origin of all sacrifices, it must be done elsewhere. We here discourse only concerning those that are properly so called, and not only so, but propitiatory also; for such he contendeth his mass to be. It is indeed suitable to the light of nature that of what we have left in our possession, we should offer to the service of | God, where he hath appointed a way for us to do so. But it is denied that in the state of innocence, he had appointed that to be by the way of sacrificing sensible things. All eucharistical offerings would have then been moral and spiritual in pure acts of the mind, and its devotion in them. | Sacrifices of or for atonement were first instituted, and other offerings had their name from thence, by reason of some kind of analogy. And so far as thank-offerings were materially the same with those which were propitiatory, consisting in the death and blood of any creature, they had in them tlie nature of a propitiation also. That these were instituted after the fall, I have elsewhere sufficiently proved. Being, therefore, at first enjoined to mankind in general, as tokens of the recovery promised, they were retained and perpetuated amongst all sorts of men, even when they had lost all notion and remembrance of the promise, to which they were originally annexed. For sacrifices had a double advantage for the perpetuating themselves. First. A suitableness to the general principle of giving an acknowledgment to God, ina return of a portion of that all which comes from him. Secondly. They had a compliance with the accusation of conscience for sin, by an endeavour to transfer the guilt of it to another. But their first origin was entirely from divine and supernatural revelation, and not from the light or guidance of nature, nor of any such innate principle as Bellarmin imagines. No such inseparable conjunction, as is pretended, between sacrifices and religion, can hence be proved; seeing they were originally an arbitrary institution, and that after there had been religion in the world. He thus proceeds further to confirm his first proposition. Sacrificium cum ipsa religione natum est, et-cum illa extinguitur; est igitur inter ea conjunctio plane necessaria. ‘Sacrificing was born with religion, and dies with it; there is, therefore, between them a conjunction plainly necessary. This is only a repetition of the proposition in other words. For to say that there is such a conjunction between sacrifices and religion, that the one cannot be without the other, and to say that they are born and die together, is to repeat the same thing. He adds, therefore, his proof of the whole. ‘Nam primi homines qui Deum coluisse leguntur Filii Adami fuerunt, Cain et Abel, illi autem sacrificia obtulisse dicuntur, Gen. iv. Afterwards, he proceeds to other instances under the Old Testament. Now, it is plain that by this first instance he has overthrown his general assertion. For he excludes from his proof the state of innocence, when unquestionably there was religion in the world, and that without sacrifices, if Cain and Abel were the first that offered them. He, therefore, by his instances doth neither prove what he proposed, nor touch upon our cause, that there were no sacrifices in the state of innocence, though that state is necessarily included in his general assertion.
§ 26. From what hath been spoken it appears, that there was no decree, no counsel of God concerning either priest or sacrifice, with respect to the law of creation and the state of innocence. A supposition of the entrance of sin, and of what ensued thereon in the curse of the law, lie at the foundation of the designation of the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ. Now, concerning the fall of man, the nature of that sin whereby he fell, the propagation of it to all mankind, the distress, misery, and ruin of the world thereby, I have at large discoursed in our former exercitations. 1 have also in them evinced in general, that it was not the will, purpose, or counsel of God, that all mankind should utterly perish in that condition, as He had determined concerning the angels that sinned; but that from the very beginning he had not only given various intimations, but also express testimonies of a contrary design. That, therefore, He would provide a relief for fallen man, that this relief was by the Messiah, whose coming and work He declared in a promise immediately upon the entrance of sin, hath been also demonstrated in those exercitations. Having removed some objections out of our way, it remains that we now build on these foundations. We proceed, then, to consider the special origin of the priesthood of Christ, in the counsel of God, with respect to the especial manner of deliverance from sin and wrath designed therein.
§ 1. The design. ᾧ 2. The end of God in his works in general: in the creation of man Personal transactions in the Holy Trinity concerning him. ᾧ 8. Gen. 1. 26. § 4. Plutality of persons in the Holy Deity here firstrevealed. § 5. God speaks not more regio. § 6. Sentiments of the Jews on the words of this text inquired into and rejected. §7. Objections of Eniedinus unto this testimony examined at large. § 8. Personal internal transactions in the Holy Trinity with respect to mankind, proved. §9. Prov. vill. 22. Corrupt translation of the LXX. Arian pretences rejected. § 10. The Jewish interpretation of this place discussed and rejected. Objections of the Socinians. § 11. A divine Person intended; proved from the text and context in sundry instances. § 12. The application of this Scripture to the Son of God, vindicated at large from the objections of Eniedinus. § 13. Christ, with respect to God the Father, said to be Jax ἼΥΝ; in what sense. § 14. The mutual delight and satisfaction of God and Wisdom in each other; what they were, and with respect whereunto, Ps. xl. 8. ὁ 15. The joy and delight of wisdom with the sons of men, hath respect to their redemption and salvation. § 16. Objections of the Jews and Mahometans to the testimony given to Christ as the Son of God, Ps. ii, 1. ὁ 17. The opposition of Eniedinus to the same purpose, removed. § 18. Eternal transactions between the Father and Son, about the redemption of mankind, hence confirmed.
§ 1. From what hath been already discoursed, it is manifest that the counsel of God concerning the incarnation, the priesthood, and the sacrifice of his Son, had respect to sin and to the deliverance of the elect from sin and all its consequences. The same truth has also been particularly discussed and confirmed, in our Exposition of the second chapter of this Epistle. That which now lies before us, is to inquire more expressly into the nature of the counsels ‘of, God in this matter, and into their progress in execution. And as in this endeayour we shall carefully avoid all curiosity or vain attempts to be wise above what is written, so on the other hand, we shall study with sober diligence to declare and illustrate what is revealed on this subject, to the end that we may so increase in knowledge, as to be established in faith and obedience. Τὸ this end are our ensuing discourses designed.
§ 2. God, in the creation of all things, intended to manifest his nature in its being, existence, and essential properties, and therein to satisfy his wisdom and goodness. Accordingly, we find his expressions concerning himself, in the work of creation, suited to declare these things; see Isa. xl. 12-15. Also that the things themselves that were made, had in their nature and order such an impression of divine wisdom, goodness, and power upon them, as made manifest the original cause from whence they did proceed. To this purpose discourseth our apostle, Rom. 1. 19—21. To γνωστον tov Θεοῦ φανερον ἐστιν ev avrotc: and the Psalmist, Ps. xix. 1, 2, as do sundry other divine writers also. Wherefore, the visible works of God, man only excepted, were designed for no other end, but to declare in general the nature, being, and existence of God. But in this nature there are three Persons distinctly subsisting. And, herein consists the most incomprehensible and sublime perfection of the divine Being. The manifestation and glory, then, of this mystery, was intended in the creation of man. For therein God would glorify himself as subsisting in ‘three distinct Persons, and himself in each of those Persons distinctly. This was not designed immediately in other parts of the visible creation, but in this, which was the compliment and perfection of the other parts. And, therefore, the first express mention of a plurality of Persons in the divine nature, is in the creation of man. And therein, also, are personal transactions intimated, concerning the present and future condition of man. This, therefore, is that which in the first place we shall evince, namely, that there were from all eternity personal transactions in the>Holy Trinity concerning mankind in their temporal and eternal condition, which transactions were first manifested in our creation.