§ 22, Crellius, in almost all his writings, opposeth this justice of God, ofttimes repeating the same things, which it were tedious to pursue. Besides, I have long since answered all his principal arguments and objections, in my Diatriba de Justitia Divina. I shall, therefore, here only call one of his reasons to an account, whereby he would prove, that there was no nécessity of making any satisfaction to God for sin, because I find it to prevail among many who are less skilled in disputations of this nature. And this is that which he insists on, lib. de Deo, cap. 3, de Potestate Dei. He Jays down this as a principle: ‘ Deus potestatem habet infligendi pcenam, et non infligendi; justitiz autem divine nequaquam repugnat peccatori, quem punire jure possit, ignoscere. He is treating in that place about the supreme dominion and free power of God. And hereunto he saith, it belongeth to inflict punishment, or to spare and pardon. But he is herein evidently mistaken. For although he who is absolutely supreme over all may punish and spare, yet it belongs not to him, as such, so to do. For punishing and sparing are the acts of a governor or judge, as such. And unto God, as such, are they constantly ascribed in the Scripture, James iv. 12; Ps. ix. 8, 9; Gen. xviii. 25; Ps. 1. 6, xciv. 2; Heb. xu. 23. Now it is one thing what may be done by virtue of absolute sovereignty and dominion, setting aside the consideration of rule and government; and another what ought to be done by a righteous ruler or judge. And whereas he says it is not contrary to justice to spare one who might de jure be punished, if he means by saying that a ruler may punish him by right, no more but that he may do so and do him no wrong, were there no more in the ease, it might be true. But it is not thus at any time with sinners; for not only may God punish them and do them no wrong, but his own holiness and righteousness require that they should be punished. And therefore the assertion, if accommodated to the cause in hand, must be this. It is no wrong to justice to spare them who ought to be punished, which is manifestly false. And Crellius himself grants, that there are sins and sinners, which not only God may punish de jure, but that he ought so to do, and that it would be contrary to his justice not to punish them: Adv. Grot. ad cap. 1, p. 98. ‘ Deinde nec illud
negamus, rectitudinem ac justitiam Dei nonnunquam eum ad peccata punienda moyere; eorum nempe quibus veniam non concedere, non modo gequitati per se est admodum consentaneum, verum etiam divinis decretis ut ita loquar debitum, quales sunt homines non resipiscentes, atque in peccatis contumaciter perseverantes; maxime si illud peccati genus, in quo persistunt, insignem animi malitiam, aut apertum divine majestatis contemptum spiret, si enim hujusmodi hominibus venia concederetur, facile supremi Rectoris Majestas, et legum ab ipso latarum evilesceret, et gloria ipsius, que precipuus operum ejus omnium finis est, minueretur.’
What here he grants concerning some sins, we intend to be true concerning all. Neither doth that justice, equity, and rule, which require these sins of contumacy and impenitency to be punished, on a free decree or act of the will of God only; for then no sin of itself, or in its own nature, deserves punishment. And it implies a contradiction to say that it doth so, and yet that it depends so merely on the will of God. And in that book, ‘de Deo,’ he hath other conceptions to this purpose, cap. 23, p. 180. ‘Est ratio aliqua honestatis, cirea quam Deus juste dispensare non potest 7 and p. 186, ‘ Deo indignum est contumacium scelera impunita demittere ἢ and cap. 28, ‘Nec sanctitas nec majestas Dei usquequaque fert ut impune mandata ejus violentur.’ If it be thus with respect to some sin, it must not be because of sin, but only of some degrees of sin, if it be not so with all sin whatever. And who can believe that the nature of sin is not contrary unto the holiness and majesty of God, but that some certain degrees only of it are so. And who shall give in that degree of sin, when it becomes inconsistent with God’s holiness and majesty? It is said that this is stubbornness and impenitency. But whoever sins once against God, will be impenitent therein, unless relieved by the grace of Jesus Christ, which supposeth his satisfaction. And this is evident in the instance of the angels that sinned.
ι § 23. The defence which he makes of his former assertion, containing the substance of what remains of their plea against the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, I shall now particularly examines and put an end to this
Exercitation. He therefore pleads: ‘ Nemini, sive puniat, sive non puniat, facit injuriam; siquidem de jure ipsius tantum agitur; neque enim nocenti debetur poena, sed is eam debet; et debet quidem illi cui, injuria omnis ultimo
redundat, qui in nostro negotio Deus est; jus autem suum si rem spectes ut persequi cuique licet, ita et non persequi; et de eo quantumlibet remittere; heee enim juris propril, ac dominici natura est.’
Answ. ‘Jus Dei,’ δικαίωμα του Θεου, ‘the right of God, in this matter, is neither ‘jus proprium, which answers the right of every private person; nor ‘jus dominicum, or the right of absolute dominion; but the right of a ruler or supreme judge, whereunto the things here ascribed to the right of God in this matter do not belong, as we shall see. For whereas he saith, 1. That whether he punish or do not punish, he doth wrong to none, it is granted that no wrong is done to men, for by reason of his sovereignty he can dothemnone. But where punishment is due to any sin, it cannot be absolutely spared without the wrong or impeachment of that justice in whose nature it is to require its punishment. It is not then properly said, that if God should not punish sin, he should wrong any; for that he cannot, do he what he will; but not to punish sin, is contrary to his own holiness and righteousness. And for what he adds, secondly, That punishment is not due to the offender, but that he owes his punishment to him against whom the injury is done, who in this case is God; I say, certainly no man ever imagined that punishment is so due to the offender, or is so far his right, as that he should be injured if he were not punished, or that he might claim it as his right. Few offenders will pursue such a right. And whereas it is said, that the injury in sin is done to God, it must be rightly understood. For the injury that is done to him, hath no analogy with that which is done by one private man to another. Neither doth our goodness add any thing to him, nor our sin take any thing from him. Job xxxvy. 6—8. ‘If thou sinnest, what dost thou against him? Or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what dost thou unto him? If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.’ But that which is here called injury, is the transgression of the law of the righteous Judge of all the world. And shall he not do right? Shall he not recompense to men according to their ways? And therefore that falls to the ground, which he adds as the proof of the whole; for as it is lawful for every one to prosecute his own right, so every one may forego it, remit of it, or not prosecute it at his pleasure. And this is that which is principally insisted on by them in this cause; namely, that the nght of punishing being in God only, he may forego it if he please, seeing every one may recede from, or not pursue his own right at his pleasure. But a person may have a double right; first, that which ariseth from a debt, or a personal injury. This every man may pursue, so as that hereby he wrongs not any unconcerned therein, nor transgresses any rule of duty prescribed to himself, and every one may at his pleasure remit, so as no prejudice redound thereby to others. But our sins in respect of God, have neither the nature of debts properly, nor of personal injuries, though they are metaphorically so called. And there is aright of rule or government, which is either positive or natural. Of the first sort is that which magistrates have over their subjects. Hereunto belongs the right of exacting punishment according to the law. Now this is such a right as hath a duty inseparably annexed to it. This therefore a righteous magistrate cannot forego, without destroying the end of magistracy in the public good. For a magistrate to say, I have indeed a right to punish offenders in the commonwealth, but I will forego it, seeing all its exercise depends upon my will, is a rejection of his duty, and a renunciation of his authority, But, lastly. The right of God to rule over all, is natural and necessary to him. So therefore is our obligation to obedience, or obnoxiousness to punishment. To say that God may forego this right, or remit of it, is to say, that he may at his pleasure cease to be our Lord and God. For the same nature of God, which necessarily requireth our obedience, doth indispensably require the punishment of our disobedience. And so have we closed our first argument in this cause, with our vindication of it.
A digression concerning the sufferings of Christ: whether they were of the same kind with what sinners should have suffered; or whether he suffered the same that we should have done.
Unto what we have argued in the foregoing exercitation, it is generally objected, that if the justice of God did thus indispensably require the punishment of sin, which was the ground of the satisfaction made by Christ; then it was necessary that Christ should undergo the same punishment that the sinners themselves should have done, namely, that which the justice of God did require. But this was imposssible, as 15 pretended. And to overthrow this apprehension, that the Lord Christ underwent the same punishment in kind which we should have done, or was due unto us, they have thus stated the opinion of them whom they do oppose. Some they say do maintain that our sins are to be looked on as our debts, or under the notion of debts, and God as the creditor, requiring the payment of them. Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ by his death and sufferings paid this debt; so that his death was ‘solutio ejusdem, or the payment of what was due in the same kind. This, say some learned men, gave great advantage unto Socinus, who easily proved that there was no necessity for a mere creditor to exact his debt, but that he might at his pleasure ‘ cedere jure suo,’ or forego his own right. And this must needs be supposed of God in this matter, whose love and grace, and pardoning mercy are so celebrated therein, And to confirm this argument it is usually added, which is the main thing pleaded by Socinus and Crellius themselves, that the ‘ Lord Christ neither did nor could undergo the penalty due unto us, because that was eternal death. And to plead that either that Christ should have undergone it, if he could not have delivered himself from it, or that what was wanting unto his sufferings as to their duration, was compensated by the dignity of his person, is to acknowledge that indeed he did not undergo the same punishment that we are obnoxious unto.
Learned men, and those sound in the substance of the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, being differently minded either in the thing‘itself, or about the sense of the terms whereby it is expressed, I shall endeavour to state right conceptions about it, or at least express my own, without a design to contradict those of any others. And, 1. For the consideration of our sins under the notion of debts, and God as creditor, it is generally known, that before the rising of any heresy, the most learned men have expressed themselves with such a liberty as advantage -hath been thence taken, by such adversaries of the truth, as afterwards arose. Thus the Scripture, having called our sins our debts, and made mention of the payment made by Christ, and compared God to a creditor, before Socinus called the whole matter of the satisfaction of Christ into question, it is no wonder, if the truth were commonly expressed under these notions, without such distinctions as were necessary to secure them from unforeseen objections. He with whom Socinus first disputed on this subject was Covetus; and he doth indeed make use of this argument to prove the satisfaction of Christ; namely, that our sins being our debts, justice required that there should be payment made of them or for them. But the truth is, he doth not take this argument from the nature of debts in general, but from the especial nature of these debts, as the Scripture calls them. For he made it appear that these debts are such as are crimes, or transgressions of the law of God: on the account whereof the persons that had contracted these debts, or were guilty of these crimes, became liable and obnoxious unto punishment, in the judgment of God who is the sovereign ruler over all. There is therefore a distinction to be put betweensuch debts as are civil or pecuniary only, and those which are criminal also. And when the Scripture sets out our sins as debts, with such cireumstances as allude unto pecuniary debts and their payment, it is to make the thing treated of obvious unto our understandings by a similitude familiar to all men; but as our sins are really intended, the expression is metaphorical. And Socinus, in his disputation about the nature of debts, creditors, and-payments, had no advantage but what he took by a supposition, that the terms which were used by his adversary metaphorically, (his argument being taken from the thing intended,) were urged by him in their proper sense; which indeed they were not. And so whereas all his disputes respects civil or pecuniary debts only, he was far enough from triumphing over his adversary, who intended such as were criminal. Wherefore as this notion of debts, creditor, and payments, need not yet be forborne in a popular way of teaching, because it is made use of in the Scripture, to give us a sense of our condition upon the account of our sins, especially a declaration being made that these debts will be exacted of us; so in a disputation about the truth, it is necessary to declare of what nature these debts are, as all generally do, asserting them to be criminal.
Secondly. There is much ambiguity in that expression of Christ’s paying the same which was due from us. For that term the same, may be variously modified from divers respects. Consider the punishment suffered, it may be it was the same; consider the person suffering, and it was not the same. And therefore it may be said, as far as it was a penalty, it was the same; as it was a payment it was not the same, or it was not the same as it was a Satisfaction. For it was only what the law required, and the law required no satisfaction as formally such. Punishment and satisfaction ditfer formally, though materially they may be the same. I judge, therefore, that Christ was to undergo, and did undergo, that. very punishment in the kind of it, which those for whom he suffered should have undergone, and that, among others, for the reasons ensuing.
1. Christ underwent the punishment which in the justice or judgment of God was due unto sin. That the justice of God did require that sin should be punished with a meet and due recompence of reward, we have proved already, and shall afterwards farther confirm. To answer and satisfy this justice it was that Christ suffered. And therefore he suffered whatethat justice rejuired. And this is what is pleaded for, and all. We should have undergone no more but what in the justice of God was due to sin. This Christ underwent; namely, what in the justice of Ged was due to sin; and therefore what we should have undergone. Nor can it be supposed that in the justice of God there might be two sorts of penalties due to sin, one of one kind, and another of another. If it be said that because it was undergone by another it was not the same, I grant it was payment, - which our suffering would never have been; it was satisfaction which we by undergoing any penalty could not make; but he yet suffered the same penalty which we should have done. No more is intended, but that the Lord Christ underwent that punishment which was due to our sins; which I cannot see how it can well be denied by those who grant that he underwent any punishment at all; seeing the justice of God required no other.
Secondly. That which was due to sin was all of it, whatever it were, contained and comprehended in the curse of the law. For in the curse God threatened the breach of the law with that punishment which in his justice was due unto it, and all that was so. I suppose this will not be denied. Jor the curse of the law is nothing but an expression of that punishment which is due unto the breach of it, delivered in a way of threatening. But now Jesus Christ underwent the curse of the law, by which I know not what to understand, but that very punishment which the transgressors of the law should have undergone. Hence our apostle says, that he was made a curse for us, Gal. iii. 13, because he underwent the penal sentence of the law. And there were not two kinds of punishment contained in the curse of the law; one that the sinner himself should undergo; another that should fall on the mediator. For neither the law nor its curse had any respect unto a mediator. Only every transgressor was cursed thereby: the interposition of the mediator depends on other principles and and reasons than any that the law was acquainted withal. It was therefore the same punishment in the kind of it, which was due to us, that the Lord Christ was to undergo, or it was that which neither the justice nor the law of God required.
Thirdly. It is said expressly, that God ‘caused all our iniquities to meet on him,’ Isa. li. 6, or hath ‘laid on him the iniquity of us all, that he ‘bare our sins, ver. 10, or ‘bare our sins in his own body upon the tree,’ 1 Peter 11. 24. Whereby he who ‘knew no sin, was made sin for us, 2 Cor. v. 21. The sense of all which places I have elsewhere pleaded and vindicated. Now unless we will betake ourselves unto the metaphorical sense of our adversaries, and grant that all these and the like expressions in the Scripture, which are innumerable, signify no more, but that Christ took away our sins, by declaring and confirming unto us the way of faith and obedience whereby we may obtain the pardon of them, and have themso taken away; we can assign no sense unto them, but that the Lord Christ underwent the punishment due unto our sins, in the judgment of God, and according to the sentence of the law. For how did God make our sins to meet on him, how did he bear them, if he did not suffer the penalty due to them? orif he underwent some other inconvenience, but not the exact demerit ofsin. And there is no other sense given of these places by them who plead for the satisfaction of Christ, but this, that he bare the punishment due to our sins, which is all that is contended for.
Fourthly. Christ suffered in our stead. He was our ἀντιψυχος, And it is usual with all learned men to illustrate his being so by the instances of such as have been renowned in the world on that account; which they have clear warrant for, from our apostle, Rom. v.7. When one would substitute himself in the room of another* who was obnoxious unto punishment, he that was so substituted was always to undergo that very penalty, whether by loss of limb, liberty, or life, that the other should have undergone. And, in like manner, if the Lord Christ suffered in our stead, as our ἀντιψυχος he suffered what we should have done. And to conclude, if a certain punishment of sin be required indispensably on account of the holiness and essential righteousness of God, I know not on what ground we can suppose, that several sorts or kinds of punishment might be inflicted for it at pleasure. It remains, that we consider the principal objections that are usually levelled against the truth asserted, and either answer them, or show how that which we maintain is not concerned in them, nor opposed by them. First, therefore, it is objected, that the punishment which we should have undergone, was death eternal. But this Christ did not, nor could undergo, so that he underwent not the same punishment that we should have done. Answ. Death as eternal was in the punishment due unto our sin, not directly but consequentially; and that ‘a natura subjecti.’ ποῦ ‘a natura cause. For that the punishment of sin should be eternal, arose not from the nature and order of all things, namely of God, the law, and the sinner, but from the nature and condition of the sinner only. This was such, as that it could no otherwise undergo a punishment proportionable unto the demerit of sin, but by an eternal continuance under it. This therefore was not a necessary consequent of guilt absolutely, but of guilt im or upon such a subject, as a sinner who is no more but a finite limited creature, is. But when by God’s appointment the same punishment fell on him, whose person upon another consideration was infinitely distanced from those of the sinners themselves, eternity was not of the nature of it. But then it may be said, that the admission of one to pay or suffer for another, who could discharge the debt in much less time than the other or offender could, is not the same that the law required. or the law takes no notice of any other, than the person who had offended. And if a mediator could have paid the same, the original Jaw must have been distinctive, that either the offender must suffer or another for him. Ansmw. These things are for the most part true, but not contrary to our assertion, as is pretended through a misapprehension of it. For the law requires no such thing as one to suffer for another; nor absolutely considered doth admit of it. This was from God’s gracious dispensation of or with the law, as the supreme Lord and Ruler over all. The law itselt takes notice only of offenders, nor hath any such supposition included in it, that the offender must suffer or a mediator in their stead, but this the law hath in it, and inseparable from it, namely that this kind of punishment is due to the transgressor of it. And by God’s gracious substitution of Christ in the room of sinners, there was no relaxation made of the law as to the punishment it required. Nor is there any word in the Scripture giving countenance unto such an apprehension. That there wasa dispensation with the law so far as that one person should undergo the punishment (namely the Son of God) which others did deserve, he becoming a mediator for them, the Scripture every-where declares. Upon the supposition of his substitution in the place and stead of sinners, could there be any word of Scripture produced intimating such a relaxation of the law, as that it should not require of him the whole punishment due to sin, but only some part of it, or not the punishment which was due to sinners, but somewhat else of another kind that was not in the original sanction and curse of it, there would be an end of this difference. But this appears not, nor 1s there anything of sound reason in it, that one should suffer for another, in the stead of another, and thereby answer the law whereby that other was bound over unto punishment, and yet not suffer what he should have done.
Nor is it pleaded in this case, that the dignity of the person makes ἊΜ what Σ K K 2 was wanting in the kind or degree of punishment, whence it is supposed that it would follow that then he who so suffered, suffered not what others ‘should have done, who were not so worthy. It is only said, that from the dignity of the person undergoing the same kind of punishment that others should have done, that respect of 1t which consisted in its duration, and arose from the disability of the person hable unto it otherwise to undergo it, could have here no place.
It is yet farther pleaded, That if the same be paid in a strict sense, then deliverance would have followed ‘ipso facto.’ For the release immediately follows the payment of the same; and it had been injustice to have required anything farther of the offenders, when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the obligation. Answ. To discuss these things at large, would require a larger discourse than I shall now divert unto. But, 1. It hath been shown already, that although we allow the expression of paying the same, it is only suffering the same for which we contend. Christ underwent the same punishment the law required, but that his so doing should be a payment for us, depended on God’s sovereign dispensation; yet so, that when it was paid, it was the same which was due from us. 2. This payment, therefore, as such, and the deliverance that ensued thereon, depended on a previous compact and agreement, as must all satisfaction of one for another. This compact, as it concerned the person requiring satisfaction, and the person making it, we have before described and explained. And as it concerns them who are to be partakers of the benefit of it, it is declared in the covenant of grace. Deliverance, therefore, doth not naturally follow on this satisfaction, but ‘jure feederis, and therefore was not to ensue ‘ipso facto,’ but in the way and order disposed in that covenant 9. The actual deliverance of all the persons for whom Christ suffered, to ensue ‘ipso facto’ upon his suffering, was absolutely impossible. or they were not, the most of them, when he suffered. And that the whole of the time, way, and manner of this deliverance dependeth on compact, is evident from them who were delivered actually from the penalty, long before the actual sufferings of Christ, merely upon the account of his sufferings which should afterwards ensue. 4. Deliverance is no end of punishment considered merely as such, none is punished properly that he may be delivered; however the cessation of punishment may be called a deliverance. 5. Mere deliverance was not the whole end of Christ’s sufferings for us; but such a deliverance as is attended with astate and condition of superadded blessedness. And the duties of faith, repentance, and obedience, which are prescribed unto us, are not enjoined only, or principally,with respect unto deliverance from punishment, but with respect unto the attaining of those other ends of the mediation of Christ, in a new spiritual life here, and eternal life hereafter. And with respect unto them, they may justly be required of us, though Christ suffered and paid the same which we ought. 6. No deliverance ‘ ipso facto,’ upon a supposition of suffering or paying of the same, was necessary, but only the actual discharge of him who made the payment, and that under the notion and capacity of an undertaker for others, which in this case did ensue. For the Lord Christ immediately on his sufferings was discharged, and that as our surety and representative,
But it may be further objected, ‘That it is impossible to reconcile the freeness of remission, with the full payment of the very same that was in the obligation. For it is impossible that the same debt should be fully paid and freely forgiven. Answ. It is well if those who make use of this objection, because they suppose it of force and weight, are justified in their own answers tothe Socinians when it is much urged and insisted on by them. For it seems at first view, that if the freedom of pardon unto us, exclude any kind of satisfaction to be made by another for us, it excludes all. For as to the freedom of pardon, wherein soever that freedom doth consist, it is asserted in the Scripture to be absolute, without any respects or restrictions. It is not said that God will so freely pardon us, that he will not require all that was due, the same that was due, but somewhat he may and will. It is not said that he will not have a suffering of this kind of punishment, but the suffering of another kind of punishment he will. And so to suppose, isa thing unworthy of the grace and righteousness of God. ‘To say, that God freely remitted our sins, abrogating the law and the curse of it, requiring no punishment, no satisfaction for them, neither from ourselves nor from the Mediator, hath, at first view, an appearance of royal grace and clemency, until, being examined, it is found inconsistent with the truth and holiness of God. ΤῸ say that God required the execution of the sentence and curse of the law, in the undergoing of the punishment due to sin, but yet, out of his love and infinite grace, sent his Sen to undergo it for us, so to comply with his holiness, to satisfy his justice, and fulfil his truth and law, that he might freely pardon sinners, this the Scripture every-where declares, and the so doing is consistent with all the perfections of the divine nature. But to say that he would neither absolutely pardon us without any satisfaction, nor yet have the same penalty undergone by Christ which his justice and law required as due to sin, but somewhat else, seems to be unworthy of the holiness of God on the one side, which is but partially complied withal, and of his grace on the other, which is not exalted by it, and is a conceit that hath no countenance'given to it inthe Scripture. Wherefore the absolute freedom of pardon to us, is absolutely consistent with Christ suffering the same penalty which was due to our sins.
And whereas it is pleaded, that ‘satisfaction and remission must respect the same person; for Christ did not pay for himself but for us, neither could the remission be unto him; so that what was exactly paid by him, it is all one as if it had been paid by us; unless it could be cautiously explained, it hath a disadvantageous aspect towards the whole truth pleaded for. ‘The Scripture is clear, that God pardoneth us for Christ’s sake; and no less clear, that he spared not him for our sakes. And if what Christ did be so accounted as done by ourselves, or that payment and remission respect immediately the same person, then be it what it will, more or less that was so paid, or so satisfied for, we are not freely pardoned, but are esteemed to have suffered or paid so much, though not the whole. This is not that which we do believe. But satisfaction was made by Christ, and remission is made unto us. He suffered, the just for the unjust, that we may go free. In brief, Christ’s undergoing the punishment due to our sins, the same that we should have undergone, (or to speak with respect to that improper notion, his paying the same debt which we owed,) doth not in the least take off from the freedom of our pardon, yea it much consists therein, or at least depends thereon. I say not that pardon itself doth so, but the freedom of it in God, and with respect to us, doth so. For God is said to do that freely for us, which he dot of grace, and whatever he doth of grace, is done for us freely. Thus the love and grace of God, in sending Jesus Christ to die for us, were free, and therein lay the foundation of free remission tous. The constitution by which he suffered the same punishment which was due to our sins, as the Surety and Mediator of the new covenant, was free, and of mere grace, depending on the compact or covenant between the Father and Son before explained. The imputation of our sin to him, ~ or the making him to be sin for us, by his own voluntary choice and consent, was in like manner free. The constitution of the new covenant, and therein of the way and law, of the participation of the benefits of the sufferings of Christ, was also free and of grace. The communication of the Holy Spirit unto us, enabling us to believe and to fulfil the condition of the covenant is absolutely free. And other instances of the freedom of God’s grace, with respect to the remission of sin, might be given. To us it is every way free. In our own persons, we make no satisfaction, nor pay one far-_ thing of our debt. We did nothing towards the procurement of another to do it.. We bring neither money nor price to obtain a pardon, but are absolved by the mere free grace of God by Jesus Christ. And there is nothing here inconsistent with Christ suffering the same that we should have done, or his paying the same debt which we owed, in the sense before explained.
§ 1. The vindictive justice of God confirmed by other arguments. § 2. The common suffrage of mankind herein. § 3. Expressed in sacrifices. § 4. The anger of God wherein it consists. § 5. Arguments proving it necessary that sin should be punished. § 6. Some of the reasons for the necessity of the priesthood of Christ. § 7. No necessity nor use of his death on any other supposition.
§ 1. Tuar which is proposed to confirmation in these Exercitations, is, that the justice or righteousness from whence it 15 that God punisheth sin, and which he exerciseth in so doing, is an essential property of his nature. There yet remain some other arguments whereby the trath hereof is con-. firmed, which I shall only briefly represent, that we be not too long detained on this particular head of our design. Besides I have both urged and vindicated these arguments already in another way.
§ 2. In the next place therefore to what hath been insisted on, we may plead the common suffrage of mankind in this matter. For what all men have a presumption of, is not free but necessary, nor can be otherwise; for it is from a principle which knows only what is, and not what may be, or may not be. Of such things, there can be no common or innate persuasion among men. Such are all the free acts of the will of God. They respect things that might be or might not be, otherwise were they not free acts. If therefore God’s punishing of sin were merely an effect of a free act of his will, without respect to any essential property of his nature, there could never have been any general presumption or apprehension of it in the minds of men. But this there is, namely, that God is righteous, with that kind of righteousness which requires that sin be punished, and therefore he doth punish it accordingly. Hence our apostle, speaking of the generality of the heathen, affirms, that they ‘ knew that it was the judgment of God, that they who committed sin were worthy of death, Rom. 1. 32. They are enormous sins indeed mostly which he instanceth in. But his inference is from the nature, and not the degree of any sin. They who commit sin are worthy of death, that is, obnoxious to it on the account of their guilt, and which shall therefore be inflicted on them. And death is the punishment due to sin. And this is the judgment of God, that which his justice requireth, which because he is just, he judgeth meet to be done. Or this 15 that right which God exerciseth in the government of all, And this was known to the Gentiles by the light and instinct of nature, for other instruction herein they had not. And this natural conception of their minds they variously expressed, as hath been elsewhere declared. Thus when the barbarians saw Paul bound with a chain, whence they supposed him to be a malefactor, they presently concluded, upon the viper’s leaping on his hand, that vengeance from God was fallen on him, which he should not escape, notwithstanding the deliverance which he had at sea. For this δικη, or ‘vengeance, they thought to be peculiarly designed to find out sinners, that had seemed to have made an escape from punishment justly deserved, Acts xxvii. 4. That such punishment is due to sin, they were sufficiently convinced of by the testimonies of their own consciences, Rom. 11. 14, 15. And whereas conscience is nothing but the judgment which a man maketh concerning himself and his actions, with respect to the superior judgment of God; a sense of the eternal righteousness of God was therein included. § 3. And this sense of-avenging justice they expressed in all their sacrifices, wherein they attempted to make some atonement for the guilt of sin. And this in an especial manner evidenced itself, partly in that horrid custom of sacrificing of other men, and partly in the occasional devoting of themselves to destruction to the same end, as also in their more solemn and public lustrations and expiations of cities and countries in the time of public calamities and judgments. For what was the voice of nature in those actings, wherein it offered violence to its own inbred principles and inclinations? It was this alone: the Governor over all is just and righteous, we are guilty. he will not suffer us to live, vengeance will overtake us, if some way or other, some course be not found out to appease him, to satisfy his justice, and to divert his judgments, Micah vi. 6, 7. This they thought to be the most probable way, to bring about this end; namely, to take another of the same nature with themselves, and it may be dear to them, and to bring him to death, the worst that could be feared or suffered, in their own stead, with an impre n ‘quod in ejus caput sit, upon him.
§ 4. oS. What is affirmed in the Scripture concerning the anger, wrath, and fury of God, against sin, and in the punishment of sinners, confirms what we affirm; see Rom. 1.18; Num. xxv. 4; Deut. xiii. 17; Josh, vii. 26; Ps. Ixxvii. 49; Isa. xiii. 9; Hab. ii. 8. Now, this anger and wrath, especially in the signification of the original words, do denote such commotions and alterations, as the divine nature is no way subject to. For with God there is neither variableness nor shadow of change, James i. 8, 18. Yet our apostle says, that this anger is revealed from heaven; namely, in the acts of divine providence in the world. Nothing therefore can be intended hereby, but the effects of anger, that is punishment. And so it is declared, Rom ili. 5; Eph. v.6; Rom. ii. 5. For the anger or wrath of God is said to come upon men, when they are punished by him for their sins. Yet something in God is declared hereby. And this can be nothing but a constant and unchangeable will of rendering unto sin a meet recompence of reward, Rom. ix. 22. And this is justice, the justice pleaded for, which is inseparable from the nature of God. Hence God is said to judge and punish in his anger, Ps. lvi. 7. And if any thing but this vindictive justice be therein intended, that is assigned to him which ought not to be assigned to a man that is honest and wise. And this doth God no less manifest in the works of his providence than he doth his goodness and patience, though the instances of it neither are nor ought to be continual, because of the future general judgment whereunto all things and persons are reserved.
§ 5. It will be granted by some, that there is such a natural property im God as that which we contend for; but it doth not thence follow, they say, that it is necessary that God should punish all sin; but he doth it, and may do it, by an absolute and free act of his will. There is therefore no cogent argument to be taken from the consideration hereof, for the necessity of the suffering of Christ. The heads of some few arguments to the contrary, shall put a close to this whole discourse.
First. God hateth sin, he hateth every sin: he cannot otherwise do. Let any man assert the contrary; namely, that God doth not hate sin: or that it is not necessary to him, on the account of his own nature, that he should hate sin, and the consequence thereof will quickly be discerned. For to say that God may not hate sin, is at once to take away all natural and necessary difference between moral good and evil. For if he may not hate it, he may love it. The mere acts of God’s will, which are not regulated by any thing in his nature, but only wisdom and liberty, are not determined to this or that object, but he may so will any thing, or the contrary. And then if God may love sin, he may approve it; and if he approve sin, it is not a sin, which is a plain contradiction. That God hateth sin, see Ps. v. 4, 5, xi. 5, xiv. 1, 11. 2; Lev. xxvi. 30; Deut. xvi. 22; 1 Kings xxi. 26; Proy. xv. 5; Hab. i. 15. And this hatred of sin in God can be nothing but the displicency in, or contrariety of his nature to it, with an immutable will of punishing it, thence arising. For to have a natural displicency against sin, and not an immutable will of punishing it, is unworthy of God; for it must arise from impotency. To punish sin therefore according to its demerit, is necessary to him.
Secondly, God with respect unto sin and sinners is called a consuming fire, Heb. xii. at; Deut. iv. 24; Isa. xxxiii. 15; and v. 24, and xii. 14. Something we are taught by the allusion in this expression. This is not the manner of God’s operation. God worketh freely, the fire bums necessarily. God I say always worketh freely, with a freedom accompanying his operation, though in some cases, on some suppositions it is necessary that he should work as he doth. It is free to him to speak unto us or not; but on supposition that he will do so, it is necessary that he speak truly; for God cannot lie. Fire therefore acts by brute inclination according to its form and principle. God acts by his understanding and will, with a freedom accompanying all his operations. This therefore we are not taught by this allusion. The comparison therefore must hold with respect unto the event, or we are deceived, not instructed by it. As therefore the fire necessarily burneth and consumeth all combustible things whereunto it is applied, in its way of operation, which is natural; so doth God necessarily punish sin, when it lies before him in judgment, in his way of operation, which is free and intellectual.
Thirdly. It is necessary that God should do every thing that is requisite unto his own glory. ‘This the perfection of his nature and existence do require. So he doth all things for himself. It is necessary therefore that nothing fall out in the universe, which should absolutely impeach the glory of God, or contradict his design of its manifestation. Now suppose that God would, and should let sin go unpunished, where would be the glory of his righteousness as he is the supreme ruler over all? For to omit what justice requireth, is no less a disparagement unto it than to do what it forbids, Prov. xvii. 15. And where would be the glory of his holiness, supposing the description given of it, Hab. i. 13? Where would be. that fear and reverence which is due unto him? where that sense of his terribleness? where that secret awe of him which ought to be in the hearts and thoughts of men, if once he were looked on as such a God, as such a governor as unto whom it is a matter of mere freedom, choice, and liberty, whether he will punish sin or not, as being not concerned in point of righteousness or holiness so to do? Nothing can tend more than such a persuasion to ingenerate an apprehension in men, that God is such an one as themselves; and that he is so little concerned in their sins, that they need not themselves be much concerned in them. Such thoughts they are apt to conceive; if he do but hold his peace for a season, and not reprove them in their sins, Ps. 1. 21. And if their hearts are fully set in them to do evil, because in some signal instances judgment is not speedily executed, Eccles. viii. 11, how much more will such pernicious consequents ensue, if they are persuaded that it may be God will never punish them for their sins, seeing it is absolutely at his pleasure whether he will do so or not; neither his righteousness, nor his holiness, nor his glory, require any such thing at his hands. This is not the language of the law, no nor yet of the consciences of men, unless they are debauched. [5 it not with most Christians certain that eventually God lets no sinner go unpunished? Do they not believe that all who are not interested by faith in the sufferings of Christ, or at least that are not saved on the account “οἵ his undergoing the punishment due to sin, must perish eternally? And if this be the absolute rule of God’s proceeding towards sinners, if he never went out of the way of it in any one instance, whence should it proceed but from what his nature doth require? —
Lastly. God is, as we have shown, the righteous Judge of all the world. What law is unto another judge who is to proceed by it, that is the infinite rectitude of his own nature unto him. And it is necessary to a judge to punish were the law requires him so to do; and if he do not he is not just. And because God is righteous by an essential righteousness, it is necessary for him to punish sin as it-is contrary thereunto, and not to acquit the guilty. And what is sin, cannot but be sin; neither can God order it otherwise. For what is contrary to his nature cannot by any act of his will be rendered otherwise. And if sin be sin necessarily, because of its contrariety to the nature of God, on the supposition of the order of all things by himself created, the punishment of it is on the same ground necessary also.
§ 6. On the grounds insisted on, it is argued and proved, that on the supposition before laid down and explained, namely, that God would glorify himself and bis grace in the recovery and salvation of sinners, which proceeded alone from the free counsel of his will; it was with respect unto the holiness and righteousness of God, absolutely necessary, that the Son of God, in his interposition for them, should be a priest, and offer himself for a sacrifice, seeing therein and thereby he could and did undergo the punishment, which in the judgment of God was due unto the sins of them that were to be saved by him.
§ 7. Hereon we lay the necessity of the death and suffering of Jesus Christ; as also our apostle doth declare, Heb. ii. 10, 11. And they who are otherwise minded, are not able to assign so much as a sufiicient cause, or just and peculiar reason for it, which yet to think it had not, is highly injurious to the wisdom and grace of God. The reason assigned by the Socinians is, that by his death he might confirm the doctrine that he taught, and our faith in himself, as also to set us an example of patient suffering,
But these things were not highly necessary if considered alone, nor peculiar, and such there must be, or no man can satisfy himself why the Son of God should suffer and die. For God sent many before to reveal his will, Moses for instance, whose declarations thereof all men were bound to believe; and yet caused them not to die violent, bloody, and cursed deaths in the confirmation of them. ‘So the death of Moses was concealed from all the world, only it was known that he died; his doctrine was not confirmed by his death. Besides, our Lord had such a power of working miracles, as gave an uncontrollable evidence unto his being sent of God, and God's approbation of what he taught. Nor can it be pretended that it was necessary that he should die that he might rise again, and so confirm his doctrine by his resurrection. or he might have died for this end any other way, and not by a shameful and cursed death, not by a death in the view whereof he cried out that he was forsaken of God. Besides, on the supposition that Christ died to confirm his doctrine, his resurrection was not of any more virtue to ingenerate, strengthen, or increase faith in us, than any other miracle that he wrought. For, himself tells us that the rismg of any one from the dead absolutely, is not accompanied with such a peculiar efficacy to that purpose, Luke xvi. 31. But.on the supposition that he died for our sins, or underwent the punishment due to them, his resurrection from the dead, is the principal foundation of our faith and hope. Neither was his being an example unto us, indispensably necessary. For God hath given us other examples to the same purpose, which he obligeth us to conform ourselves unto, Jam. v. 10, 11. Whereas, therefore, all acknowledge that Christ was the Son of God, and there must be some peculiar reason why the Son of God should die a shameful and painful death, this cannot be assigned by them, by whom the indispensable necessity of punishing is denied.
Others say it was needful the Lord Christ should suffer, for the declaration of the righteousness of God, with his hatred of, and severity against sin. So indeed, the Scripture says; but it says so on the suppositions before Jaid down and proved. How they can say so with any congruity to, or consistency of reason, by whom these are denied, I cannot understand. For, if there be no such justice in God as necessarily requires that sin be punished, how can it be exalted or manifested in the punishment of it. If the punishment of sin be a mere free act of the will of God, which he may exert, or the contrary, the pleasure of his will is manifested indeed therein, but how his justice is made known I see not. Suppose, as the men of this persuasion do, that it was easy with God to pardon the sins of men freely, without any satisfaction or compensation; that there was nothing in his nature that required of him to do otherwise; that, had he done so, he had done it without the least disadvantage to his own glory; that is, he had acted therein as became his holiness and righteousness, as he is the supreme Governor over all; on these suppositions I say, who can give a reasonable account why he should cast all our sins on his Son, and punish them all in his person, according as if justice had required him so to do? To say that all this was done for the satisfaction of that justice which required no such thing to be done, is not satisfactory.
8. From what hath been discoursed, both the origin and necessity of the priesthood of Christ are evidently demonstrated. There was no respect in the designation of it, to the state of innocence. Upon the supposition and consideration of the fall, the entrance of sin and the ruin of mankind thereby, there were personal transactions in the Holy Trinity with respect to the recovery of men; as there had been before in their creation. Herein the Son undertook to be our Deliverer, in and by the assumption of our nature (wherein alone it could be wrought) into personal union with himself; because, for this end the justice and holiness of God required, that the penalty due and threatened unto sin should be undergone and suffered. This the Son willingly undertook to do in that nature which he assumed to himself. And, because the things themselves to be suffered, were not only, nor indeed so much, considered, as his will and obedience in suffering being an instance of obedience in compliance with the will and law of God, outbalancing the disobedience of the first, and of all our sins in opposition thereunto; therefore was he in all his sufferings to offer himself up freely to the will of God, which offering up of himself was his sacrifice, to which end he was called, anointed, ordained of God, a high priest. For this office consisteth in a power, right, and faculty given unto him of God to offer up himself in sacrifice, in, by, and under his suffering of the penalty due to sin, as thereby to make expiation of sin, and reconciliation for sinners, as we shall prove in our next discourse.
§ 1. The nature of the priesthood of Christ why proposed to consideration. The opinion of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ; consequents thereof. § 2. Christ, a High Priest properly so called. Arguments in the confirmation thereof, proposed and vindicated, Heb. v. 1, vii. 11—16, explained to that purpose. § 3. God, the immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, proved from the typical priesthood, and the use of sacrifices. § 4. Farther confirmed from the nature of all the offices of Christ. § 5. From the nature of sacerdotal duties and’acts. § 6. Some particular testimonies pleaded to the same purpose; the conclusion. § 7. The call of Christ unto his priestly office. § 8. His inauguration and actual susception of it. § 9. Things considerable in the priest’s offering sacrifices of old. § 10. Their accomplishment in the Lord Christ discharging his priestly office. § 11. The truth thereof farther explained and confirmed. § 12. ‘Testimonies of the Scripture to that purpose, urged, explained, vindicated, Eph. v. 2. §13. Heb. v. 6, 7. § 14. Heb.i. 3, vindicated. § 15. Heb. ix. 14, vindicated.
§ 16. Christ once offered, and that when he bare our sins. ὃ 17. The necessity of suffer-
§ 1. Tuar our Lord Jesus Christ is the true and only High Priest of the church, hath been before declared, and it is in words acknowledged by all in some sense or other. The general nature also, of that office hath been fully manifested from what we have discoursed concerning its original, with the ends of it, and his designation thereunto; without the utter overthrow of those foundations in the first place, all the attempts of men against the true and proper nature of his office as vested in him, are weak and impotent. The sacrifice that he offered as a priest, the nature, use, and end thereof, must be considered apart afterwards, in its proper place. ‘The qualifications of his person, with the love, care, and grace which he exerciseth in the discharge of this office, must all be distinctly spoken to, as they are represented to us by the apostle, in the epistle itself. Wherefore, there would be no necesity of handling the nature of this office here apart, were it not for the opposition that is made to it, and that depravation of the doctrine of the gospel concerning it, which some have attempted. For whereas the principal design of the Socinians in these things is to overthrow the sacrifice that he offered as a priest, they lay the foundation of their attempt in an opposition to the office itself. It is, therefore, principally with respect to them that I have here proposed the nature of that office unto consideration, and shall be more conversant in its vindication than in its declaration, which most Christians are acquainted withal. And I shall proceed in this method herein: First. I shall declare what are in general their conceptions about this office, in opposition whereunto the truth declared in the Scripture shall be taught and vindicated. Secondly. I shall more particularly declare their opinions as to the several concerns of it, and consider as well their explanation of their own sense with their confirmation of it, as their opposition and exceptions to the faith of the church of God.
§ 2. In the first place, they grant that the Lord Christ is our High Priest; that is, that he is so called in the Scripture; but that he is so really they deny. For this name they say is ascribed unto him, not properly or directly to denote what he is or doth, but by reason of some kind of allusion that there is between what he doth for us, and what was done by the priests of old amongst the Jews, or under the Old Testament. He is, therefore, in their judgment, improperly and metaphorically called a priest, as believers are said to be kings and priests, though after somewhat a more excellent manner. For he is so termed because of the good offices that he doth for the church, and not that he is or ever was a priest indeed. Hereon they say,
Eeondly. That he then entered on this office, or then began to do that work, with reference whereunto, because of its allusion to the work of the priest under the law, he is called a priest, when upon his ascension into heaven, and appearance in the holy place, he received power from God, to help and relieve, and assist the church in all its occasions. What he did and suffered before in the world, in his death and blood-shedding, was by virtue of God’s decree a necessary preparation unto his discharge of this office, but belonged not thereunto, nor, did he there offer any sacrifice to God; wherefore they also affirm,
Thirdly. That this priesthood of Christ is indeed of the same nature with his kingly office, both of them consisting in a power, ability, authority, and readiness to do good unto the church. Only, herein there seems some difference between them, that as a King he is able to help and save us, but as a Priest he is willing and ready so to do.
Fourthly. That the object of the acts of the priesthood of Christ, is first and principally man, yea, it is only so, none of them having God for their object, no more than the acts of his kingly power have. For it is his care of the church, his love towards it, with the supply of his grace and mercy, which from God he bestows upon it, on the account whereof he is said to be a priest, and his so doing is called the exercise of his priesthood. This in general is the substance of what they affirm and teach concerning this office of Christ, as we shall more particularly manifest and evince in the ensuing Exercitation. Now, if these things are so, I confess all our exposition of this Epistle, at least, the principal parts of it, must fall to the ground, as being built upon the sandy foundation of many false suppositions. And not only so, but the faith of the whole church of God in this thing is overthrown, and so are also all the common notions of mankind about the office of the priesthood and its exercise, that ever prevailed in the world. And to lay the whole fabric of truth in all instances level with the earth, the instructive relation or analogy that is between the types of the Old Testament and the substance of things declared in the New, is taken away and destroyed. Wherefore, it is necessary that we should diligently assert and confirm the truth in this matter, in opposition to all their bold assertions, and vindicate it from their exceptions, whereby we shall fully declare the nature of this blessed office of Christ.
§ 3. Our first difference is about the name and title as to the signification of it when applied to Jesus Christ. And we affirm that he is properly the High Priest of the church, and not metaphorically only. When I say he is properly the High Priest of the church, my meaning is, that he is so the High Priest, as he is the King and Prophet of the church. And observe, that by what means or arguments it may be proved that Christ is the true, real King and Prophet of the church, and not only so called metaphorically, by the same may it be proved that he is in like manner the High Priest of the church also. For, both the name is in like manner assigned unto him, and the office, and the acts of it, yea, they are so more fully and expressly than the other. And he may as well be said to be metaphorical in his person, as in his offices. But I shall distinctly manage those arguments, to which I challenge all the Socinians in the world to return a direct answer, and not by long digressions and tergiversations; a precedent for which is given them by Crellius in this case, whose sophistical evasions shall be called to particular account afterwards.
Ist. He unto whom all things whatever, properly belonging to a priest are ascribed, and to whom belongs the description of a priest in all things essential to him, such ascription and accommodation- being made by the Holy Ghost himself, or by persons divinely inspired by him; he is a High Priest properly so called. And that things are so with reference unto the priesthood of Christ, will appear in the ensuing instances.
1. As to the name itself, this is ascribed unto him; and no man durst have so called him, had he not been first called so by the Holy Ghost. And this he is both in the Old Testament and in the New. He is expressly said to be the ἹΠΞ, ‘Iepevc, apxeepevc, a Priest, a High Priest, without the least intimation on any occasion, of impropriety or of a metaphor in this expression. And as he thus called frequently, so constantly with respect unto those acts and duties which are proper unto the office of the priesthood. Now, whatever colour may be given unto the metaphorical use of a word or a name where it is but once or rarely used, and that with respect unto such things as answer not unto the proper signification, there can be none where it is used frequently and in the same case invariably, and constantly with respect unto things that suit its proper signification.
and whatever in answer to it was found in Aaron as belonging to this office, and not adhering unto him individually from the infirmity of his person, is all ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ, as is undeniably evinced in our exposition of the place, whereunto I refer the reader. In brief, he was taken by the call and appointment of God from amongst men, Deut. xviii. 18; Heb. vii. 13, 14. He was appointed for man or to act in his behalf, 1 John ii. 1, 2, and that ra πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν in things pertaining to God, Heb. vii. 26, ix. 14, 15, particularly to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, Heb. viii. 3. If this were all that was required to constitute Aaron a priest properly so called; then the ascription of these things unto Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, is sufficient to declare him a priest properly so called. And there is strength added unto this argument, from what the apostle discourseth, concerning the necessity of a call from God unto this office. For he tells us, ‘ that no man taketh this honour to himself, that is to be a priest, ‘unless he be called of God as was Aaron, ver. 4. And thence he shows and proves that Christ did not take this honour unto himself, but in like manner was called of God, ver. 5. Now, if not the honour of a real and proper priesthood with respect unto Christ be intended, but somewhat else metaphorically so called, then is the apostle’s way of arguing utterly impertinent, as from an instance of one kind, he argues the necessity of a thing of another. And it may be replied unto him, that although a man must be called of God to a priesthood that was real and proper, such as was that of Aaron, yet it doth not thence follow, that such a call is necessary to that which is so metaphorically only. For so all believers are made priests to God, but yet none of them have any especial call from God thereunto.
3. The discourse of our apostle, ch. vii. 11—16, gives farther evidence to the same truth..
‘If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity also a change of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. And it is yet far more evident, for that after the similitude of Melchisedec, there ariseth another priest, &c. For we may observe,
1. That as Aaron was a priest, so there was a necessity from the prophecy of Ps. cx. 4, that there should be another priest. Now if. this other priest were not a priest properly so called, as Aaron was, there is no consequence in the apostle’s discourse, it proceeding on terms equivocal.
2. The priesthood, according to this prophecy, and our apostle’s interpretation of it, was only to be changed. But if, after the removal of the law, there was no other proper priesthood to succeed, it was not changed but abolished. And it is more true that there was none, than that there was any; for properly there was none, though metaphorically there was.
3. On this supposition, all the circumstances insisted on by our apostle, as exceedingly observable to his purpose; namely, that our Lord was of the tribe of Judah and not of Levi, that he was constituted a priest in an especial way, and not like to that of old, are of no use. For there is nothing peculiar in these things, if he mtend not a priest properly so called.
4. It utterly enervates that mvincible argument whereby the apostle proves the necessary cessation of the law, and legal or Mosaical institutions.
For he builds on this supposition, that the priesthood being changed, the law of divine worship or service must be so also. And this unavoidably follows, because of the inseparable relation that was between the Aaronical priesthood, and all the worship of the tabernacle. But if this other priest whom he intends, was not properly but only metaphorically so, there might be a thousand of them, and yet no necessity of the change of the law of worship ensue. For two priests, one whereof is proper, and the other only metaphorically a priest, are consistent at the same time; but two that are properly so, are not; whence our apostle says, that the Lord Christ could not be a proper priest of the same nature with those of the order of Aaron, whilst they continued, Heb. viii. 4.
5. He is expressly said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec. But this Melchisedec was a priest properly so called. He therefore must be so who is a priest according to the same order. For priests of several sorts and kinds, as real and nominal only, or proper and metaphorical, cannot be said to be after the same order. For no orders can be more different than those whereof one is proper, the other metaphorical. This difference is not in some property and adjunct, but in the whole kind; as real and painted fire differ, or a man and his image: besides, he is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec, so as that withal he is denied to be a priest after the order of Aaron. But if he were not properly so called, but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion unto a proper priesthood in what he did, the direct contrary might much rather be asserted. For there was more allusion between Aaron in his priesthood and him, and our apostle gives more instances of it, than between him and Melchisedec. And if it be false that Christ was an high priest according to the order of Aaron, notwithstanding the great allusion between what he did and what was done by Aaron in that office, and the great representation made of him and his actings thereby, then is it not true that Christ was called a priest after the order of Melchisedec, by reason of some allusion unto the office of the priesthood.
6. This conception would utterly enervate the sense of the general argument that the apostle manageth towards these Hebrews, as well as that special one about the cessation of the law. For he is pressing them to stability and constancy in the profession of the gospel, that they fall not back unto their old Judaism which they had deserted. To enforce his exhortation to this purpose, the principal argument he insists on, is taken from the excellency and glory of the priesthood under the New Testament, incomparably exalted above that of the Old, which yet was the most glorious and useful part of their worship. But that which is metaphorical in any kind, is evidently less than that which is properly so. It is replied by Crellius, that what is only metaphorically so, may yet be more excellent than that which is properly, whereof he gives some instances. And it is true it may be so. But it cannot be so in that instance wherein the metaphor consists. Suppose the Lord Christ to be only metaphorically a priest, yet he may on many other accounts be far more excellent and glorious than Aaron. But yet the priesthood of Aaron being properly so, and his only metaphorically so, the priesthood of Aaron was more excellent than his, which is directly contrary to the scope of the apostle. Suppose the Lord Christ were metaphorically only a prophet or a king, he might yet on many other considerations be more excellent than either Moses or Dayid; yet they must on this supposition be granted to have had the offices of prophet and king more eminently than he. So also must it be with his priesthood on this supposition with respect to that-of Aaron.
7. Add unto all these particular instances to the contrary, that this Socinian fiction, of the Lord Christ being not a priest, but only called so by reason of some similitude between what he doth for the church, and what was done by the priests of the law, which indeed, as by them explained, is none at all, is directly opposite to the whole design and discourse of the apostle in this Epistle. or treating of the priesthood of Christ, he constantly calls him a priest in the sense which they had of that expression to whom he wrote, or he spake not to their understandings; assigns all sorts of sacerdotal actions to him, in all instances of duties belonging to a priest as such; and that in competition with and way of preference above the priests of the order of Aaron; nor doth in any place, either directly or indirectly, give the least information, that all these expressions of his were only tropical or metaphorical, not indeed signifying those things which those to whom he wrote understood by them. This had not been to instruct the Hebrews, but to deceive them, nor will be granted by those who have a greater reverence for the sacred writings, than to wrest them at their pleasure into a compliance with their own preconceived opinions.
And this is the first thing which we are to consider in the investigation and vindication of the true nature of the priesthood of Christ. It was such as that on.the account thereof he was a priest properly so called; which, as it gives a rule to the interpretation of the nature of the sacrifice which as a priest he offered, so is the truth of it confirmed by all other things which are ascribed to him under that qualification, as we shall see afterwards. And what remains for the further confirmation hereof, will be added, in our ensuing consideration of the attempt of our adversaries to establish the contrary assertion.
§ 3. Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, his actings in that office do in the first place respect God himself: ra προς roy Ocov, he did the things that were to be performed with God in the behalf of the people. And this further manifests the nature of his office. He came as a priest, εἰς τὸ ἱλασκεσϑαι rac ἁἅμαρτιας Tov Aaov, Heb. it. W. that is, ἱλασκεσϑαι τον Θεὸν περι των ἁμαρτιων as hath been observed by many, to make reconciliation with God for the sins of the people. For sins cannot be the immediate object of reconciliation; but he alone is so who was displeased with them, and by whom on that reconciliation they are pardoned, and the sinner acquitted. But yet neither can we carry this without controul. This also is denied by our adversaries in this cause, although therein they offer violence, not only unto all that we are taught in the Scripture about these things, but also unto all common sentiments of mankind, putting such senses on these expressions as are absolutely contrary to them, and inconsistent with them. What are these senses we shall afterwards examine; for the present it sufficeth to our purpose to take no notice of their denial, that the sacerdotal actings of Christ, that is his oblation and intercession, do respect God in the first place, the contrary whereunto we shall now teach and confirm.;
The Scripture instructs us, as we have proved, that the Lord Christ was and is our high priest, and moreover that as such he offered himself to God once for all, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, as a propitiatory, expiatory sacrifice, Isa. 1111, 10; Heb. 1, 8,11, 17, v. 7, vii. 27, x. 10;
Eph. ν. 2; 1 John ii. 2. What the Holy Ghost intends hereby, and what is the meaning of these expressions, he had before instructed the church in, by those institutions under the Old Testament, whereby he foresignified and represented what was intended in them and by them. To suppose these expressions to have one signification under the Old Testament, and another quite of a different nature under the New; whereas the thing signified by the one were appointed only to teach and instruct us in the nature of the other, is to take away all certainty from what we are taught in the Scripture. We may therefore positively conclude, that if the actings of the priests under the Old Testament did respect God in the first place, then those of Christ did so also, or there is no similitude or analogy between these things, which to affirm is to overthrow both the Old Testament and the New. This therefore we must in the first place confirm.
The principal duty and work of the priests under the law, was to offer sacrifices. As the whole law speaks thus, so our apostle expressly confirms it, making that work the great end of the priesthood. Sacrifices had respect to sin. Priests were appointed to offer ϑυσιας περι ἁμαρτιων, “ sacrifices for sin.’ And when God called them to the work, he said it was 12710 sd, that they should ‘ exercise the priesthood towards him,’ Exod. xxviii. 1. Had there been no sin, there had been no sacrifices, properly so called, as we have proved before. There might have been a dedication of any thing in our power to God as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and bounty. But sacrifices by blood had all respect to sin, as the nature of them doth declare. Wherefore God appointing priests to offer sacrifice for sin, and, therein to minister to him, he must be the first object of their actings as such.
Sacrifices by blood to be offered by these priests, and by them only, God appointed of various kinds, with respect unto various occasions, of bulls, goats, sheep, fowls, whose nature and differences I have explained in our former Exercitations, Exercit. xxiv. The principal end of all these sacrifices was to make atonement forsin. This is so express in their institution, as it is all one to deny that there were any sacrifices appointed of God, as to deny that they were appointed to make atonement. See Lev. 1. 4, v. 5, 6, vi. 7, xvi. 6, 34, &c. Now the nature, use, and end of atonement, was to avert the anger of God due to sin, and so to pacify him that the sinner might be pardoned. ‘This is the import of the word, and this was the end of those sacrifices whereby atonement was made. The word is sometimes used where no sacrifice was applied, but is never used in any other sense than that declared. So Moses spake unto the people upon their making ot the calf; ‘ Ye have sinned a great sin, and now I will go up unto the Lord. peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin,’ Exod. xxxii. 30. He hoped that he should by his interposition turn away the wrath of God, and obtain pardon for them, which he calls making an atonement, because of its - respect unto the great future sacrifice, by virtue whereof alone we may prevail with God on such occasions, Lev. v. 5, 6, as in many other places this is appropriated unto sacrifices; ‘When a man is guilty in any of these things, he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for the sins which he hath sinned, and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning sin.’ So also v. 17, 18, vi. vii. &c. The sin committed was against the Lord; the guilt contracted was confessed to the Lord; the sacrifice or offering was brought unto the Lord; the atonement was made by the priest before the Lord; all which give it the nature before described, and admit of no other. In some instances the sins committed were to be confessed over the head of the sacrifice wherewith the atonement was to be made, which rendered the whole action more pregnant with representation. A person guilty of sin, convicted in his own conscience, condemned by the sentence of the law, by God’s allowance and appointment brought a clean beast assigned in general for that use, and bringing it to the altar confessed over it his sin and guilt, laying them legally upon it, so delivering it up unto the hand of the priest, by whom it was slain, and the blood poured out, as suffering under the, guilt laid upon it, wherein, with some other ensuing acts, it was offered to God to make an atonement for the sin committed and confessed. Thus was blood given unto the people to make atonement for their souls, because the life of the beast was in the blood, which was destroyed in the shedding thereof, Ley. xvii. 11.
Certainly no man can ever arrive unto so much confidence as to question whether the actings of the priests in these sacrifices whereby atonement was made, did not in the first place respect God himself; nor indeed do I know that it is by any positively and directly denied. For the sense we plead for, depends not on the use of any one single word, or the signification of it in these or other places, but upon the whole nature and express ends of these institutions. And herein all mankind are agreed, namely, that the divine power was the immediate object of sacerdotal actings; that they were done with God in the behalf of men, and not actings towards men on the behalf
By all these terms and expressions doth our apostle describe the sacerdotal actings of Christ. For having declared him to be a high priest, he affirms that he offered a sacrifice to God; a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sin; as also that therein God made all our sins to meet upon him, which he bare in his own body on the tree. The question now is, what is intended thereby. Our adversaries say, it is the merciful and powerful actings of Christ towards us, giving out help, assistance, grace, and mercy from God to us, so delivering us from all evil, the whole punishment due to sin and eternal death. But why are these things called his offering of himself unto God a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sn? They say it is because of an allusion and similitude that is between what he doth so for us, and what was done by the priests of old in their sacrifices. But it is plain from what hath been declared concerning the sacerdotal actings of the priests of old in their sacrifices, that there is no allusion nor similitude between these things, nor can they assign wherein it should consist. Their actings’ were immediately towards God on our behalf, his are towards us on God's behalf; theirs were to make atonement for sin, his to testify love and mercy to sinners; theirs by shedding of blood, wherein was life, his in power and glory. Wherefore, I say, if we have any instruction given us in these things, if the office of the priesthood, or any duties of it, any sacrifices offered by the priests, were instituted to typify, prefigure, and represent Jesus Christ as the great high priest of the church, it cannot be but that his sacerdotal actings do first and immediately respect God himself, which shall now be farther confirmed.
§ 4. There are, (as is out of controversy,) three offices which the Lord Christ as the mediator and surety of the new covenant beareth and exerciseth towards the church; namely, those of king, prophet, and priest. And these, as they are distinctly assigned unto him, so they are distinct among themselves, and are names of divers things, as really, so in the common notions and sense of mankind. And in these offices, where there is an affinity between them, or any seeming coincidence in their powers, duties, and acts, the kingly and prophetical more nearly coincide with each other, than either of them do with the sacerdotal, as shall afterwards be more fully evinced. For the nature of these two offices requireth that the object of their exercise be men; as in general it doth so, so in particular in those of Christ. He acts in them in the name of God, and for God towards men. For although a king be the name of one who is invested with power absolute and supreme, yet is it so, only with respect to them towards and over whom he is a king. As denoting an infinite, absolute, independent power, of necessity it belongs to God alone essentially considered. This office in Christ is considered as delegated by the Father, and exercised in his name; the head of every man is Christ, but the head of Christ is God. He anoints him king on his holy hill of Sion, Ps. ii. And he rules in the name and majesty of his God, Mic. v. 2. Wherefore the whole exercise of the power and duty of this office is from God, and for God towards men. In his name he rules his subjects and subdueth his enemies. None can fancy God to be the object of any of the acts of this office.
It is so in like manner with his prophetical office. God raised him up from among his brethren to be the prophet of his church, to reveal his will, and by him he spake to us. See Exposit. on Heb. i. 1. His whole work as a prophet is to reveal the will of God, and therein to teach and instruct us. Men, therefore, are the immediate object of the powers, duties, and acts of this office.
And that which we farther observe from hence is this, that there is no one thing that the Lord Christ acts immediately towards the church, but that it belongs unto, and proceeds from one or the other of these powers or offices. If any one be otherwise minded, let him prove the contrary by instances if he be able. The Scripture affordeth none to that purpose. It followeth, therefore, that God is the object of the actings of Christ in his priestly office. For if he be not so, then Ist. There is no room nor place in his whole mediation for any such office, seeing ali he performs towards us belongs unto the other. And therefore those by whom this is denied, do upon the matter at length contend, that indeed he hath no such office. And if this be so, 2d. It doth not belong unto Christ as mediator to deal with God in any of the concerns of his people. For he must do so as a priest or not at all. And then we have no advocate with the Father, which is utterly abhorrent from the common faith of Christianity. And this absurd supposition shall be afterwards removed by express testimonies to the contrary. Take away this fundamental principle, that Christ as mediator deals with God for us, and you overthrow the faith of all Christians. 3d. This would render the whole instruction intended for the church in the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, useless and impertinent, nothing of the like nature being signified thereby. for that, as we have proved, openly respected. God in the first place. And on this supposition the accommodation of it unto the priesthood of Christ by our apostle would be altogether vain. Ath. It is contrary to the common notion of the nature of the priesthood amongst mankind; for none ever yet owned such an office in things religious, who did not apprehend the use of it to be in doing the things with God that were to be done on the behalf of men. And hereby would, as was observed, the faith and consolation of all believers, which are resolved into what the Lord Christ hath done, and doth for them with God, be utterly overthrown.
§ 5. Secondly. The same truth is undeniably evinced from the ee of sacerdotal acts and duties. These are, as it is stated by common consent, those two of oblation and intercession. And both these are expressly ascribed unto the Lord Jesus Christ as he is a high priest, and nothing else immediately as he is so. The actual help and aid which he gives us, is the fruit and effect of these sacerdotal actings. The sole inquiry, therefore, in this matter is, what or who is the immediate object of oblation and intercession. Is this God or man? Did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice unto God or unto us?. Doth he intercede with God for us, or with us only? A man would suppose that the absurdity of these imaginations, so expressly contrary to the Scripture and the common sense of mankind, should even shame our adversaries from the defence of them. But they are not so obtuse, or so barren in their invention, as to want evasions at any time. ‘Quid si manifesto tenentur? anguilla sicut elabentur.’ They therefore tell us, it is true, if you take oblation and intercession in their proper sense, then God and none other, must be their immediate object. But as they are ascribed unto Christ they are used only metaphorically, and do indeed denote such actions of his towards the church, as have some allusion unto oblation and intercession properly so called. But I say, Ist. There was never such a metaphor heard of before, that one thing should be called by the name of another, between which there is no peculiar similitude, as there is none between offering unto God, and giving grace unto men. 2d. Who hath given them this authority to turn what they please into metaphors, by which means they may, when they have a mind to it, make an allegory, and consequently a fable of the whole Scripture? It is expressly affirmed that the Lord Christ is a high priest; nothing is in the notion of that office taken properly, that is unworthy of him, no more than in those of king and prophet. No intimation is given us directly or indirectly that this office is ascribed to him metaphorically. As such he is said to make oblation and intercession to God; the things wherein the exercise of the priestly office doth consist. What confidence is it now to deny, that he doth these things properly and immediately with God as a high priest, by an arbitrary introduction of a metaphor to which the Scripture giveth not the least countenance!
§ 6. We might, moreover, plead the use and end of the sacrifice which he offered as a high priest, which was to make expiation of sin and atonement for it. But because we differ with our adversaries about the sense of these expressions also, I shall not make use of them as the medium of an argument, until the precise signification of them be evinced and determined, which shall be done (God willing) in our consideration of the nature of the. sacrifice itself. Wherefore I shall close this head of our disputation with some express testimonies confirming the truth in hand. To this purpose speaks our apostle, ch. viii. 3, ‘For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. The things which the high priest had of old to offer as © ifts.and sacrifices, they offered unto God. This I presume is unquestionable: for God commanded them that all their gifts and sacrifices should be offered unto him upon his altar consecrated for that purpose. To have done otherwise had been the highest idolatry. But Christ, if he be a high priest, must, saith the apostle, of necessity have somewhat to offer, as they did, and after the same manner; that is, unto God. If this he did not, there is nothing of reason or sense in the apostle’s inference. For what necessity can there be, that because the high priests of old did offer sacrifices to God, that then, if Jesus Christ be a high priest, he must do something of another kind? They have nothing to say upon these instances but to confess the words, and deny the thing; and then tell us that they agree to the words, but differ about their interpretation, the interpretation they suggest being a direct denial of the thing itself, whereof more afterwards. Τὸ the same purpose speaks our apostle, ch. v. 11, which place hath been before vindicated, and is so fully in the ensuing exposition, whereunto the reader is referred. And this consideration discovereth much of the general nature, use, and end, of the priesthood of Christ which we inquire after. For it is hence evident, that it is the power, office, and duty whereby he makes an interposition between God and us, that is with God on our behalf. And there are two general ends of this interposition, as the Scripture testifies, and which the common faith of Christians relies upon. And these are, Ist. ‘Averruncatio mali, the removal of all sorts of evil from us, every thing that did or might befal us in a way of evil, hurt, damage, or punishment, on the account of our sins and apostasy from God. 2d. ‘Acquisitio boni, the procuring and obtaining for us every thing that is good, with respect to our reconciliation to God, peace with him, and the enjoyment of him. And these are intended in the general acts of his office. For, Ist. His oblation first and principally respects the making atonement for sin, and the turning away of the wrath that was due to us as sinners; wherein he was Jesus the deliverer, who sayes us from the wrath to come. And this is all that is included in the nature of oblation as absolutely considered. But as the oblation of Christ was founded on the covenant before described, it had a farther prospect. For with respect unto the obedience which therein he yielded unto God according to the terms of that covenant, it was not only satisfactory but meritorious; that is, by the sacrifice of himself he did not only turn away the wrath which was due unto us, but also obtained for us eternal redemption, with all the grace and glory thereunto belonging, There remains nothing to be done on our behalf after the once offering of himself, whereby he perfected for ever them that are sanctified, but only the actual application of these good things unto us, or our actual instating in the possession of them. Hereunto is his intercession, the second duty of his priestly office, designed; the especial nature whereof must be elsewhere declared and vindicated.
§ 7. For the farther clearing of the whole subject of our inquiry, we must yet consider both the call of Christ unto this office, his actual inauguration, and his discharge of it, both when and where. For all these belong unto its nature.
The call of the Lord Christ unto this office is expressly asserted by our apostle, ch. v. 4, 5, ‘And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee, ver. 6. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a. priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’ If the reader desire to see the particulars wherein the call of Christ consisted, its comparison with the call of Aaron, and preference before it, or exaltation above it, he may consult our exposition on that place, from whence I shall repeat nothing here. In general I say, that the call of Christ to the office of the priesthood, consisted in that eternal covenant which was between the Father and him concerning his undertaking the work of our recovery and salvation, which I have at large before described. He was not made a priest by virtue of any vocal command, as Aaron was called by a command given to Moses to that purpose, Exod. xxviii. 1, nor by virtue of any established law, which gave the posterity of Aaron their succession into that office. But he was called by an immediate transaction between him and the Father, before the world was. This call of his, therefore, may be considered either with respect to designation or manifestation. As it intends the designation of Christ to his office, so it is expressed in those words of God the Father to him, ‘ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;) which what they import in the covenant transactions between the Father and the Son, hath been before declared. The manifestation of this call, consisted originally in the first promise given concerning his incarnation and undertaking of the work of our redemption, Gen. iii. 15. With respect hereunto he says, Ps. xl. 38 “TDN snsrowy> ‘Sy ano app mbna ΝΕ mn smn, ver. 7, 8, ‘Then said I, Lo I come. In the volume of thy book,’ that is, nda WN, ‘in the beginning of the sacred volume,’ as our apostle renders it, ἐν κεφαλιδι, in the head of it, ch. x. 7, that is, in that first promise recorded in the beginning of the Scripture, wherein his own consent was tacitly included, and the virtue of his office and sacrifice established; whence he became the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And more need not be added in this place concerning this call of Christ to the office of the priesthood.
§ 8. His actual inauguration into it, or susception of it, is next to be considered. And he was vested with all his offices from his conception and nativity. There was no time wherein he was, as to his human nature, and was not the king, priest, and prophet of his church. For he received all his offices by the unction of the Spirit, when God anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. And this was done fundamentally in his incarnation, when he was conceived and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, communicated to him not by measure. And so he was born Christ the Lord, Luke ii. 11. He was born one anointed by the Holy Ghost, Lord, and consequently priest and prophet, all which offices were communicated by unction. Together with those graces, gifts, and abilities, which were necessary to their discharge, right, title, and authority, for their exercise in their proper seasons, were conveyed to him thereby, and in those two doth all office and power consist.
_ The actual exercise of all the offices of Christ was regulated by the will of the Father, his own wisdom in compliance therewithal, with the order and nature of the things themselves about which he was to be conversant therein. He was anointed to be the great prophet of the church from the womb; yet he entered not upon the public discharge of that office, until after his baptism, when his commission and call thereto were proclaimed from heaven, Matt. iii. 17. So also was he Christ the Lord, that is, the king of the church; yet began he not visibly to exercise that office in his own person, until the mission of his apostles with authority from him to preach the gospel, Matt. x. So had God disposed of all things, and so did the nature of the work which he had to do require. And as to his priestly office, he neither did nor could enter upon the exercise and discharge of it, until the end of his prophetical ministry. For he could not do it but by his death, which was to put an end to that ministry here on the earth, excepting only the instructions which he gave to his apostles after his resurrection, Acts i. 3.
But to propose the whole matter somewhat more distinctly, there are three things that concurred to the inauguration of the Lord Christ into this office, or there were degrees of it. 1. His real unction by the Holy Ghost, with an all-fulness of gifts and graces at his incarnation. This whole work of the Spirit, with its effects, [ have elsewhere at large discussed, and shall not farther insist upon it. 2. His declarative unction at his baptism when the Spirit descended upon him, and filled him with power for the exercise of all the gifts and graces he had received for the discharge of his whole office. 3. To both these there succeeded an especial dedication to the actual performance of the duties of this office; and this was his own act, which he had power for from God. This himself expresseth, John xvii. 19, ὑπερ avrwy ἐγὼ ἁγιαζω ἐμαυτον, ‘I sanctify, that is, “1 consecrate or dedicate myself.’ For of real sanctification by purification, and further infusion of grace, he was not capable. And the communication of real grace to the human nature was the work of the Holy Ghost; he did not so sanctify himself; but he did dedicate, separate, and consecrate himself to God in the discharge of this office. It doth also respect the sacrifice which he was to offer. Iconsecrate and give up myself to be a sacrifice. But he who was to be the sacrifice, was also to be the sacrificer. This consecration therefore respected his person, and what he was to do as the sacrificer, no less than what he was to suffer asa sacrifice. or this also was necessary, and every high priest was so consecrated.
In that prayer therefore of our Saviour, John xvii. do I place the beginning and entrance of the exercise of his priestly office. Whatever he did after this, to the moment of his death, belonged principally thereunto. Sundry things, I confess, fell in occasionally afterwards, wherein he acted his prophetical office, in bearing witness to the truth. But the scope of all his ensuing actions and passions respect his priestly office only. For although his sacrifice, precisely considered, consisted of his actually offering of himself on the cross, yet his sacerdotal actings with reference to it, are not to be confined thereto. And what these actings were, without an inquiry into the nature of his sacrifice, which I have designed for the subject of another discourse, I shall briefly recount.
Sundry things were considerable in the sacrifices of old, which, although they did not all belong to the essence of them, yet they did to their completeness and perfection, being all types and resemblances of what was afterwards to be done by Christ himself. Some of these we shall call over to give an illustration thereto.
89. 1. There was required thereto the adduction of the sacrifice, or of the beast to be sacrificed, unto the priest. With respect to the ΤΠ, or daily sacrifice in the temple, this it was incumbent on the priest to provide. This adduction belonged io the sacrifice, and is expressed by a sacred word, Ley. 1. 2, ἸΔῚ ΞΡ" OW. This made it a Corban, ‘a gift brought,’ sacred, dedicated to God. For there was in it, 1. ‘ Animus offerentis, the mind and intention of the offerer to devote it unto God, which was the foundation, and gave life to the sacrifice. Hence it was a principle even among the heathen, that no sacrifice was accepted that proceeded not a lubenti animo, ‘from a willing mind.’ And this the apostle seems to allude to, 2 Cor. viii. 12, εἰ yap ἡ προθυμια προκειται, ‘if there be a free determination or purpose of mind,’ namely, in offering any thing to God, εὐπροσδεκτος, καθὸ ea exy τις, ov καθὸ οὐκ exer, Sit is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according unto what he hath not.’ It is the mind, and not the matter, that gives measure and acceptance to an offering. 2. There was in it loss and damage in the charge of it. The offerer parted with it ‘e peculio suo.’ He gave it up to make expiation for his sin. 3. The care of providing it according to the law, belonged also hereunto. The offerer was to take care that it were of clean beasts, a male or female, as the law required, without blemish. It is true, the priest was also to make judgment hereof after its bringing to him. But he that brought it was to use his utmost skill and diligence in the choice of a meat-offering out of his flock, or he fell under the curse of the deceiver, Mal. i. 13,14. 4. The act of adduction itself belonged unto the holy service, with a testification of a desire, in a way of faith and obedience, to have it offered unto God. These things indeed were no essential parts of the sacrifice, but they were necessarily antecedent to it, and preparatory to it. And all these things in some cases were left to the people, although they signified what was to be done by Christ in his sacrifice, to manifest the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, which could not comprise nor answer all that was to be prefigured by sacrifices. Secondly. There was mactation, or the killing the beast by priests at the altar. And herein consisted the essence, all that followed being instituted testification of its direction and dedication to God. Hence to slay and to sacrifice, in this matter are the same. τῷ
Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucumque revises.— Vir.
See our xxvith Exercitation for the confirmation hereof. And the substance of the sacrifice is to be thought principally to consist herein, though the offering of it was also necessary to its completeness and perfection. For,
1. Herein the intention of the sacrificer and sacrificed in that solemn Formula which was understood in all expiatory sacrifices, ‘ Quod in ejus _ caput sit, was affected or accomplished. And as the common sense of all nations agreed in a commutation in such sacrifices, as I have proved elsewhere, so we are plainly taught it in the Scripture. For besides that this is the open sense and meaning of all institutions about them, so the especial rite of confessing sin over the head of the scape-goat, thereby laying it on him, yea, and the command that he who brought his sin or trespass-offering should therewithal confess his own guilt, do make it evident. Now this, as is manifest, was accomplished in the death and mactation of the saerifice.