Vindiciæ evangelicæ or The mystery of the Gospell vindicated, and Socinianisme examined, in the consideration, and confutation of a catechisme, called A Scripture catechisme, written by J. Biddle M.A. and the catechisme of Valentinus Smalcius, commonly called the Racovian catechisme. With the vindication of the testimonies of Scripture, concerning the deity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, from the perverse expositions, and interpretations of them, by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations on the Bible. Also an appendix, in vindication of some things formerly written about the death of Christ, & the fruits thereof, from the animadversions of Mr R.B. / By John Owen D.D. a servant of Jesus Christ in the work of the Gospell.

CHAP. XXII.

The severall considerations of the Death of Christ, as to the Expiation of our sinnes thereby, and the satisfaction made therein: First, of it as a Price. Secondly, as a Sacrifice.

1. THe Death of Christ in this businesse is a Price: and that* 1.1 properly so called: 1 Cor. 6. 20 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you were bought with a Price; and if we will know what that Price was, with which we are bought; the Holy Ghost informes us, 1 Pet. 1. 17, 18. ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ, which in this businesse hath that use which silver and gold have in the Re∣deeming of Captives: And paid it is into the hand of him, by whose Power and Authority the Captive is detained, as shall be proved: And himselfe tells us what a kind of Price it is, that is so paid; it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 20. 28. He came to lay downe his life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which for its more evidence and cleerenesse, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim 2. 6. A Price of Redemption, for the de∣livery of another.

The first mention of a Ransome in the Scripture is in Exod.* 1.2 21. 30. If there be laid on him a summe of money, then he shall give for the Ransome of his life, what ever is laid on him: the word in the O∣riginall is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Septuagint there render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and it is used againe in the same sence, Ps. 49. 9. and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for the deliverance of that, which upon guilt became obnoxious to death. It is true, the word is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redimere, vindicare, as∣serere in libertatem, by any wayes and meanes, by Power, Strength, or otherwise. But where ever it is applyed to such a kind of Redemption, as had a Price▪ going along with it, the Septuagint constantly render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, otherwise by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the like.

It is then confessed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testament, is some∣times* 1.3 taken for redemit in a Metaphoricall sence, not strictly and literally, by the intervention of a Price; but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word whereby it is rendred, when a Price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is denyed. Indeed Moses is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 1. 35. in reference to the Metaphoricall Redemption of Israel out of Aegypt: a deliverance by Power and Strong Arme; but shall we say because that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could be paid, where God plainly saies, it was not done by a Price, but by Power, therefore it must be so used in those places, where there is ex∣presse mention of a Price, both the Matter of it, and its forma∣lity as a Price, and speaketh not a word of doing it any other way, but by the payment of a Price. But of this afterward.

There is mention of a Ransome in ten places of the Old Te∣stament;* 1.4 to ransome, and ransomed, in two or three more. In two of these places, Exod. 21. 30. and Lev. 49. 8. the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as before, and rendred by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all other place it is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly sig∣nifies a propitiation, as Psal. 49. 7. which the LXX have variously rendred. Twice it is mentioned in Job. Ch. 33. 24. and Chap. 36. 18. In the first place, they have left it quite out, and in the latter so corrupted the sence, that they have rendred it altoge∣ther unintelligible, Prov. 6. 35. & 13. 8. they have properly rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a price of Redemption, it being in both places used in such businesse, as a Ransome useth to be accepted in: Chap. 21. 8. They have properly rendred it to the subject matter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are things publickely devoted to destru∣ction, as it were to turne away Anger from others, coming up∣on them for their sakes.

So is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homo piacularis pro lustration•• & expiatione patriae* 1.5 devotus; whence the word is often used as scelus in Latine, for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies he in the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used* 1.6 in the same sence by Herodotus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the Countrey. Whence Budaeus renders that of the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nos tanquam

piacula mundi facti sumus, & succidaneae pro populo victimae. we are as the accursed things of the World, and Sacrifices for the people: reading the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Greek Scho∣liast,* 1.7 who read it as we commonly do, rendring it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as the vulgar Latine purgamenta, to the same purpose; such as have all manner of filth cast upon them.

And Isaiah 43. 3. They have rendred the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.8 a commutation by price; so Mat. 16. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a Price in exchange. Now in all these places and others, the Hebrews use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a propitiation, by way of Allusion; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, I will give Aegypt a propitiation for thee; That is, as God is attoned by a propitiatory Sacrifice, wherein something is offered him in the room of the Offender, so will he do with them; put them into trouble, in room of the Church, as the Sacrificed Beast was in the room of him for whom it was Sacrificed; and hence does that word signify a Ransome, because what God appoin∣ted in his Worship to redeeme any thing, that by the Law was de∣voted, which was a compensation by his institution, (as a clean beast in the room of a first born was to be offered a Sacrifice to God) was so called. And the word satisfaction, which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together, Num: 35. 31. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Originall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed is Originally Pitch or Bitu∣men: Hence what God saies to Noah about making the Arke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 6. 14. the Septuagint have rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bituminabis bitumine. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in P••hel, is Pla••avit, expiavit, ex∣piationem fecit; because by Sacrifice sins are Covered, as if they had not been; to cover or hide, being the first use of the word.

And this is the rise and use of the word Ransome in the Scrip∣ture,* 1.9 both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it denotes properly a price of Redemption, a valuable compensation made by one thing for ano∣ther, either in the Native signification, as in the case of the first word; or by the first Translation of it from the Sacrifice of Attonement, as in the latter. Of this farther afterwards in the businesse of Redemption. For the present it sufficeth, that the death of Christ was a Price or Ransome, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.

2. It was a Sacrifice; & what sacrifice it was shall be declared.* 1.10

1. That Christ offered a sacrifice, is abundantly evident from what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place, when, and wherein Christ was an high Priest. The necessity of this the Apostle confirmes Heb. 8. 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. If he be a Priest, he must have a Sacrifice. The very nature of his employment requires it. The whole and entire office & employment of an High Priest, as a Priest, consists in offering Sacrifice, with the performance of those things, which did necessarily precede and follow that Action. It is of necessity then that he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.

For the other part of our inquiry, viz. What it was that he* 1.11 Sacrificed; I shall manifest in this order of processe, (taking leave to inlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before, as the manner of it.)

• 1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice, that any Priest had offered before, by Gods appointment.
• 2. He did not actually offer any such Sacrifice.
• 3. I shall shew positively what he did offer.

1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice that the Priests of old had appointed for them to offer. He came to do another manner of worke, then could be brought about with the blood of Bulls and Goats. It cost more to redeeme our soules. That which was of more Worth in it selfe, of neerer concernement to him that offe∣red it, of a more manifold Alliance to them for whom it was offered, and of better acceptation with God to whom it was offered, was to be his Sacrifice. This is the aime of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For the Law &c.

This is the summe of the Apostles Discourse; The Sacrifices* 1.12 instituted by the Law, could not effect, nor worke that which Christ our High Priest was to accomplish by his Sacrifice; and therefore he was no•• to offer them; but they were to be abolished, and something else to be brought in that might supply their roome and defect.

What was wanting in these Sacrifices, the Apostle ascribes to* 1.13 the Law, whereby they were instituted. The Law could not do it, that is, the Ceremoniall Law could not do it. The Law which insti∣tuted and appointed these Sacrifices, could not accomplish that

end of the instruction, by them▪ And with this expression of it he subjoynes a reason of this weakenesse of the Law. It had a shaddow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things them∣selves. An obscure representation of those good things, which when they were instituted and in force, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come, though now actually exhibited, and existent: that is, Jesus Christ himselfe, and the good things of the Gospell accompa∣nying of him. It had but a shaddow of these things, not the image; that is, the substance of them; for so I had rather un∣derstand Image here substantially; as that may be called the image of a picture, by which it it drawn; then to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to differ but gradually, as the first rude shape and proporti∣on, and the perfect limning of any thing do. The reason then why al the solemn, operous, burdensome service of old, could not (of it selfe) take away sin, is because it did not containe Christ in it, but only had a shaddow of him.

2. The Apostle instances in particular, by what means the* 1.14 Law could not do this great worke, of making the commers thereunto perfect. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoke in opposition to what is said of Christ, Chap. 7. 25. He is able to save to the uttermost 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that come to God by him. The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God for Acceptati∣on. As Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh unto God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; these it could not make perfect; that is, it could not perfectly attone God, and take away their sinnes, so that the conscience should no more be troubled, nor tormented with the guilt of sinne, as v. 2, 4. By what could not the Law do this? By those Sacrifices which it offered yeare by yeare continually.

Not to speake of Sacrifices in generall. The Sacrifices of* 1.15 the Jewes may be referred to 4. heads.

1. The dayly Sacrifice of morning and evening, which is institu∣ted Exod. 29. 38, 39. which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah: 10. 33. And wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus according to the Prophesy of Daniel, Dan. 11▪ 31. this is the juge sacrificiū typifying Christs constant presence with his Church, in the benefit of his death alwayes.

2. Voluntary and occasionall, which had no prefixt time, nor matter; So that they were of such Creatures as God had▪

allowed to be sacrificed, they were left to the will of the Offerer, according as Occasion and necessity was by providence administred. Now of these Sacrifices there was a peculiar Reason, that did not (as farre as I can finde) bellong unto any of the rest▪ The judiciall government of that Nation being as their own Historian Josephus calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and immedi∣ately in the hand of God; He appointed these voluntary Sacrifi∣ces, which were a part of his Religious worship, to have a place also in the judiciall government of the People. For whereas he had appointed death to be the punishment due to every sinne; He allowed that for many sinnes, Sacrifice should be offered, for the expiating of the guilt contracted in that Commonwealth, of which himselfe was the Governour. Thus for many sinnes of ignorance, and weaknesse, and other Perversityes, Sacrifice was offered, and the guilty Person dyed not, according to the gene∣rall tenour of the Law, cursed is every one that continueth not in all these things. Hence David in his great sinne of murther and* 1.16 Adultery flyes to meere Mercy acknowledging, that God had appointed no Sacrifice for the Expiation of those sins, as to the guilt politicall, contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise, no sinnes nor sinners were excluded from the benefit of Sacrifices. This was their politicall regard, which they had, or could have only on this account; that God was the supream politicall Governour of that people, their Lord, and King.

3. Sacrifices extraordinary on solemne occasions: which* 1.17 seeme some of them to be Mixed of the two former kinds: stated and voluntary. Such was Solomons great Sacrifice at the Dedi∣cation of the Temple. These partly answered the Sacrifice, insti∣tuted at the dedication of the Altar and Tabernacle, partly the free will offerings, which God allowed the people, according to their occasions; and appointed them for them.

4. Appointed Sacrifices on solemne dayes: as on the sabbath,* 1.18 new moones, passeover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater Jubilee but especi∣ally the solemn Anniversary Sacrifice of expiation, when the High Priest entred into the Holy place, with the blood of the beast Sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tizri. The institution of this Sacrifice you have Levit. 16. throughout. The matter of it was one Bullock, and two Goats, or Kids of Goats, v. 2, 5, The manner was this, 1. In the entrance Aaron offered one▪

Bullock peculiarly for himselfe and his house, v. 6. 2. Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sinne offering, the other to be Azarel, v. 8. 9. (3.) The Bullock and goate being slaine, the blood was carryed into the Holy place. (4.) Azarel having all the sinnes of the people confessed over him, was sent into the Wildernesse to perish; v. 21. (5.) The end of this Sacrifice was Attonement and cleansing, v. 30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this Sacrifice (as of others) elsewhere; at present, I attend only the Thesis proposed.

Now if perfect Attonement and Expiation might be expected* 1.19 from any of the Sacrifices so instituted by God, certainely it might be from this: therefore this doth the Apostle choose to instance in. This was the Sacrifice offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but these saith he could not do it; the Law by them could not do it, and this he proves with two Arguments.

1. From the Event vers. 2, 3. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshipper once purged, should have had no more conscience of sin? But in these Sacrifices, there was a re∣membrance made againe of sinnes every yeare. The words of the second verse are to be read with an Interrogation, conclusive in the negative: would they not have ceased to have been offered? That is certainely they would; and because they did not do so, it is evident from the Event, that they could not take away sinne. In most Copys the words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Those that adde the negative particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, put it for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is frequently used.

2. From the nature of the thing it selfe, v. 4. For it was not possible, that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sinne; the Reason in these words is evident and plaine, especially that of v. 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing.

1. In regard of Impetration; it was impossible they should really attone God, who was provoked. 1. The conjunction between the sinner and the Sacrificed Beast, was not such, or so neere (being onely that of possessour and possessed,) that really and beyond Representation, and Type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sinne of the other. Much lesse secondly, was there an innate worth in the blood of any beast, though never so innocent, to attone the justice of God, that was offended at sinne: Mich. 6. 6, 7. Nor thirdly, was there any will in

them for such an undertaking, or commutation. The Sacri∣fice was bound with cords to the hornes of the Altar; Christ went will∣ingly to the sacrifice of himselfe.

2. In regard of application. The blood of Common Sacri∣fices being once shed, was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor efficacy: it could not possibly be a living way for us to come to God by; nor could it be preserved, to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the sinner.

Hence doth the Apostle make it evident, in the first place,* 1.20 that Christ was not to offer any of the Sacrifices which former Priests had offered, because it was utterly impossible, that by such Sacrifices, the end of the Sacrifice which he was to offer, should be accomplished. This also he proves.

2. Because God had expresly ••isallowed of those Sacrifices, as to that End; not only it was impossible in the nature of the thing it selfe, but also God had absolutely rejected the tender of them, as to the taking away Sinne, and bringing sinners to God. But it may be said, did not God appoint them for that end and purpose, as was spoken before; the end of the Sacri∣fice in the day of expiation was (Levit. 16. 30.) to attone, and cleanse; On that day shall the Priest make an attonement for you to cleanse you. (for the Priest made an Attonement actively, by offering the Sacrifice: the Sacrifice its selfe Passively, by undergoing the penalty of Death; Christ, who was both Priest & Sacrifice, did both) I answer; they were never appointed of God for to accō∣plish that End, by any reall worth, and efficacy of their own, but meerly to typify, prefigure, and point out him, and that; which did the Work, which they represented; and so served as the A∣postle speaks, untill the time of Reformation, Heb. 9. 10. they served the use of that people, in the under-age Condition, wherein God was pleased to keep them.

But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose, the Apostle proves by the Testimony of David, speaking of the Acceptance of Christ, Psalm. 40. 6. 7. Sacrifice and offering thou diddest not desire, mine eares hast thou opened; burnt-offering, and sin-of∣fering hast thou not required: Then said I, ••o I come, &c. which the Apo∣stle insists on, v. 6, 7, 8, 9. There are several accounts, upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard, & not to approve or accept of Sacrifices, which yet were of his own Institution. 1. In respect

of the Hypocrisy of the offerers: That people being grown formall, and corrupt, trusted in Sacrifices, and the Worke wrought in them, and said by them, they should be justified; God ex∣pressing his indignation against such Sacrificers, or the Sacrifi∣ces of Such Persons, rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted, that is, in reference to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost, Isaiah 1. 12, 13. but this is not the cause of their rejection in this place of the Psalmist; for he speaketh of them who walked with God in uprightnesse, and wai∣ted for his Salvation; even of himselfe and other Saints, as ap∣pears in the Context, v. 5. &c. 2. Comparatively; they are rejected as to the outward Work of them, in comparison of his more spiri∣tuall Worship; as Psal. 50. 12, 13, 14. but neither are they here rejected on that account; nor is there mention of any opposition between the outward Worship of Sacrifice, & any other more Spirituall and internall part thereof: but between Sacrifice, and the boring of the eare, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expres∣ly, v. 6.

Their Rejection then here mentioned, is, in reference to that* 1.21 which is asserted, in opposition to them, and in reference to the end, for which that is asserted: look to what end Christ had a Body fitted and prepared for, and to that end, and the com∣passing of it, are all Sacrifices rejected of God: now this was to take away sinne, so that as to that end are they rejected.

And here in our passage may we remove what the Racovian* 1.22 Catechisme gives us, as the difference between the expiation un∣der the Old Testament, and that under the New, concerning which, Chap. de Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 5. they thus enquire.

What is the difference between the expiation of sinne* 1.23 in the Old and New Testament?

The expiation of sinnes under the New Te∣stament, is not only much different from that under the Old, but also is farre better, and more excellent: and that chiefely for two cau∣ses: The first is, that under the Old Testament, expiation by those legall Sacrifices was ap∣pointed only for those sinnes, which happened upon imprudence and infirmity; from whence they were also called infirmities and ignoran∣ces.

But for greater sinnes, such as were ma∣nifest transgressions of the command of God, there were no Sacrifices instituted, but the pu∣nishment of Death was proposed to them: & if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by vertue of the Covenant, but of singular mercy, which God besides the Covenant did afford, when, and to whom he would: but un∣der the New Covenant, not only those sinnes are expiated, which happen by imprudence, and infirmity, but those also, which are trans∣gressions of most evident commands of God, whilest he who happened so to fall, doth not con••inue therein, but is changed by true repen∣tance, and falleth not into that sinne againe. The latter cause is, because under the Old Te∣stament, expiation of sinnes was so performed, that only temporall punishment was taken a∣way from them, whose sinnes were expiated. But under the New, the expiation is such, as not only takes away Temporall, but Eternall punishment, and in their stead, offer Eternall life promised in the Covenant, to them whose sinnes are expiated. Thus they.

Some briefe Animadversions will give the Reader a cleare* 1.24 account of this discourse. 1▪ Sundry things are here splendid∣ly supposed by our Catechists, then which nothing could be imagined or invented more false: as (1.) That the Covenant was not the same for Substance under the Old and New Te∣stament, before and after the coming of Christ in the flesh. (2.) That those under the Old Testament were not pardoned or saved by Christ. (3.) That death Temporall was all that was threatned by the Law. (4.) That God forgave sinne, and not in, or by the Covenant (5.) That there were no promises of Eternall life under the Old Testament, &c. on these and the

like goodly principles, is this whole discourse erected: let us now consider their Assertions: The first is;

1. That expiation by legall Sacrifices was only for some sins,* 1.25 and not of all: as sinnes of infirmity and ignorance, not great crimes; wherein 1. They suppose, that the legall Sacrifices did by themselves, and their own efficacy, expiate sinne, which is directly contrary to the discourse of the Apostle now insisted on. (2.) Their affirmation hereon is most false: Aaron making an Attonement for sinne, confessed over the Goat ALL THE INIQUITIES of the Children of Israell, and ALL their Transgressions, in all their sinnes, Levit. 16. 21. and besides, all manner of sinnes are comprised under those expressions of Igno∣rances and Infirmities.

2. They say, for greater sinnes there was then no expiation, but death was threatned to them. But then 1. None that ever com∣mitted such sinnes were saved; for without expiation there is no Salvation. 2. Death was threatned, and inflicted without mercy for some sinnes, as the Law with its judiciall additaments was the Rule of the Judaicall Politie; and for those sinnes, there was no Sacrifice for a deliverance from death Temporall; but Death was threatned to every sinne, small and great, as the Law was a Rule of Morall obedience unto God; and so in respect of Sa∣crifices there was no distinction. This difference of Sacrifices for some sins, and not for others in particular, did depend meerly on their use by Gods appointment in the Common-wealth of that People, and had no regard to the spirituall expiation of sinne, which they typified.

3. That God forgave the sinnes of his people of old, by sin∣gular mercy, and not by vertue of his Covenant, is a bold sig∣ment. God exercises no singular mercy, but in the Covenant thereof: Eph. 2. 12.

4. Their condition of Expiation (by the way) under the New Testament, that the sinner fall not againe into the same sinne, is a matter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discusse it.

5. That the Expiation under the Old Testament reached only to the removall of temporall punishment, is another imagi∣nation of our Catechists. It was death eternall that was threat∣ned, as the punishment due to the transgression of the Law, as it

was the Rule of obedience to God, as hath been proved; even the death that Christ delivered us from, Rom. 5. 12, &c. Heb. 2. 14, 15. God was attoned by those Sacrifices, according to their way of making Attonement, Levit. 16. 30. so that the punish∣ment avoided was Eternall punishment. 2. Neither is this in∣deed spoken by our Catechists, as though they believed any punishment should be Eternall; but they only hide themselves in ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they intend thereby. 3. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this discourse is, that expi∣ation by Sacrifices was no other, then what was done really by the Sacrifices themselves, so everting their typica•• nature and in∣stitution, and devesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they did represent.

6. It is confessed, that there is a difference between the Ex∣piation under the Old Testament, and that under the New; but this of Application and manifestation, not of impetration and procure∣ment: This is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.

But they plead proofe of Scripture for what they say in the* 1.26 ensuing Question.

How doest thou demonstrate both these?* 1.27

That the sinnes, which could not be expia∣ted under the Old Testament, are all expiated under the New, Paul witnesseth, Act. 13. 38, 39. and the same is also affirmed, Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. But that sinnes are so expiated under the New Testament, as that also Eternall pu∣nishment is removed, and life Eternall given, we have Heb. 9. 12.

This work will speedily be at an issue. 1. It is denied, that Paul Act: 13. 38, 39. makes a distinction of sins, whereof some might be expiated by Moses Law, and others not. He says no more there, then in this place to the Hebrews, namely, that the Legall Sacrifices, wherein they rested and trusted, could not of themselves free them, or their Consciences from sin, or give them Peace with God; being but Types and Shaddowes of good things to come; the Body being Christ, by whom alone all Justification from sinne is to be obtained. Absolutely the Sacrifices of the

Law Expiated no sinne, and so were they rested in by the Jews. Typically they expiated all, and so Paul calls them from them to the Antitype (or rather thing Typifyed) now actually ex∣hibited.

2. The two next places of Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. do expres∣ly* 1.28 condemne the Figment they st••ive to establish by them; both of them assigning the pardon of sinnes that were past, and their Expiation, unto the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ; though there were then purifications, purgations, sacrifices, yet the meritorious, and efficient cause of all Expiation, was the blood of Christ, which manifests the Expiation under the Old and New Testa∣ment for substance to have been the same.

3. That the Expiation under the New Testament is accompa∣nied with deliverance from Eternall punishment, and a grant of life Eternall, is confessed; and so also was that under the Old, or it was no Expiation at all, that had respect either to God, or the soules of men: but to proceed with the Sacrifice of Christ.

This is the first thing I proposed, Christ being to offer Sacrifice,* 1.29 was not to offer the Sacrifice of the Priests of old; because they could never bring about wha•• he aimed at in his Sacrifice; it was impossible in the nature of the thing it selfe, and they were ex∣presly, as to that end, rejected of God himselfe.

2. Christ as a Priest did never Offer these Sacrifices; it is true!* 1.30 as one made under the Law, and whom it became to fulfill all righte∣ousnesse, he was present at them: but as a Priest he never offered them; for the Apostle expresly affirmes, that he could not ••e a Priest, that had right to offer those Sacrifices, as before; and he posi∣tively refuses the owning himselfe for such a Priest, when ha∣ving cured the Leprous man, he bad him goe shew himselfe to the Priest according to the Law.

3. What Christ did offer indeed, as his Sacrifice, is nextly* 1.31 mentioned. This the Apostle expresseth in that which is asser∣ted, in opposition to the Sacrifices rejected, Heb. 10. 5. But a body hast thou prepared me.

The words in the Psalme are in the sound of them other∣wise, Psal: 40. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine eares hast thou digged: which the Septuagint render, and the Apostle from them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; a body hast thou prepared me; Of the accommoda∣tion of the Interpretation to the Originall, there is much con∣tention;

some think here is an Allusion to the custome among the Jewes, of boring the eare of him, who was upon his own con∣sent to be a Servant for ever. Now because Christ took a Body to be obedient, and a servant to his Father this is expressed by the boring of the eare, which therefore the Septuagint renders by preparing a body, wherein he might be so obedient; but this to me seems too curious on the part of the Allusion, and too much strained on the part of the Application, and therefore I shall not insist on it.

Plainly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not only in its first s••nc•• to dig▪ but also to prepare, and is so rendred by the Septuagint; now where∣as the Originall expresseth only the ea••es, which are the organ by which we heare, and become obedient, (whence to heare is sometimes as much as to be obedient) it mentions the eare Sy∣necdochically, for the whole body, which God so prepared for obe∣dience to himselfe: and that which the Originall expressed Sy∣necdochically, the Septuagint, and after them the Apostle, rendred more plainly and fully, naming the whole body wher••in he obeyed, when the ears were only expressed, whereby he learned obedi∣ence.

The Interpretation of this place by the Socinians, is as ridi∣culous,* 1.32 as any they make use of; take it in the words of * 1.33 Volkelius.

Adde hereto that the mortall body of Christ, which he had before his death, yea before his Ascension into Hea∣ven, was not fit for his undergoing this Office of Priesthood, or wholly to accomplish the Sacrifice: wherefore the divine writer to the Hebrews Chap. 10. 5. declareth, that then he had a perfect body, accommodated unto this work, when he went into the World; that is, to come, which is Heaven.

An heap of foolish A∣bominations. 1. The truth is; no body, but a Mortall body was fit to be this Sacrifice, which was to be accomplished, according to all the types of it, by shedding of blood, without which there is no remission. 2. It is false, that Christ had a mortall body after his Resurrection; or that he hath any other body now in Heaven, then what he rose withall. 3. It is false, that the World, spoken of simply, doth

any where signify the World to come, or that the World here sig∣nifies Heaven. 4. It is false, that the coming into the World, signifies going out of the world: as it is here interpreted. 5. Christs bring∣ing into the world, was by his Incarnation and birth, Heb. 1. 6. according to the constant use of that expression in the Scripture, as His Assension is his leaving the world, and going to his Father, Joh: 13. 1. Cap. 14. 19. Cap. 16▪ 28.

But I must not insist on this; it is the Body that God prepa∣red* 1.34 Christ for his obedience, that is, his whole humane nature that is asserted for the matter of Christs offering. For the clea∣ring whereof the Reader may observe, that the matter of the Offering, and Sacrifice of Christ is expressed three wayes.

1. It is said to be of the body and blood of Christ: Heb. 10. 10. The offering of the body of Jesus, and the blood of Christ, is sayd to purge us from our sinnes, that is, by the Sacrifice of it; and* 1.35 in his blood have we Redemption, and by his own blood did he enter into the Holy place, Heb. 9. 12. and most expressly, Heb. 13. 12.

2. His Soule: Isa. 53. 10. when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne.

3 It is most frequently sayd to be himselfe that was offered. Eph. 5. 2. & Heb. 1. 3. Heb. 9. 14 & v. 25. & v. 26. Heb. 7. 27. Hence it appeares, what was the matter of the Sacrifice of this High Priest; even Himselfe; he Sacrificed himselfe; His whole humane nature; he offered up his body and soule, as a propitiatory Sacrifice to God; a Sacrifice for Attonement and expiation.

Further to cleare this, I must desire the Reader to take notice* 1.36 of the import of this expression: He sacrificed himselfe; or Christ Sacrificed himselfe. He in the first place, as it is spoken of the Sacrificer, denotes the Person of Christ, and both natures herein: himselfe as the Sacrificed, is only the humane nature of Christ wherein, and whereof that Sacrifice was made▪ He makes the Attonement actively as the Priest; Himselfe passively, as the Sa∣crifice.

1. He is the Person of Christ, God and man joyntly and distinctly acting in the worke.

1. As God, Heb. 9. 14. through the Eternall Spirit he offered himselfe to God; His Eternall Spirit, or Deity, was the principall Agent, offering; and whereever there is mentioning of Christs

offering himselfe, it relates principally to the person, God man, who offered.

2. The free will of his humane nature was in it also; So Heb. 10. 7. Lo! I come to do thy will; when God had prepared him a body, opened his eares, he sayes, Lo I come to do thy will; as it was written of him in the volume of Gods book; and that this expression Lo I come to do thy will, sets out the readinesse of the humane will of Christ, is evident from that Exposition which is given of it, Psal. 40. 8. yea thy Law is within my heart, or in the midst of my bowels; Thy Law, the Law of the Mediatour, that I am to undertake, it is in the midst of my heart: which is an ex∣pression of the greatest readinesse and willingnesse possible. He then that offers is our Mediatour, God and man in one Person; and the offering is the act of the Person.

2. Himselfe offered, as the matter of the Sacrifice, is only the* 1.37 humane nature of Christ, Soule and Body, as was said; which is evident from the description of a Sacrifice, what it is.

A Sacrifice is a Religious oblation, wherein something by the Mini∣stry of a Priest, appointed of God thereunto, is dedicated to God and destroyed, as to what it was, for the ends and purposes of Spirituall worship where∣unto it is instituted. I shall only take notice of that one part of this definition, which asserts that the thing Sacrificed was to be destroyed as to what it was. This is cleare from all the Sacri∣fices that ever were: either they were slaine, or burnt, or sent to destruction. Now the person of Christ was not dissolved; but the Ʋnion of his natures continued; even then when the humane nature was in it selfe destroyed, by the Separation of Soule and Body. It was the Soule and Body of Christ that was Sacrificed; his body being killed, and his soule separated; so that at that season it was destroyed as to what it was; though it was impossible he should be detained by death.

And this Sacrifice of Christ, was typyfied by the two Go••ts▪ his* 1.38 body, whose blood was shed, by the Goat that was slaine visibly, and his soule by Azazel, on whose Head the sinnes of the people were confessed, and he is sent away into the Wil∣dernesse to suffer there by a fall or famishment.

This also will farther appeare in our following conside∣ration of the Death of Christ, as a punishment; when I shall shew▪ that he suffered both in Soul and Body▪

But it may be sayd, if only the humane nature of Christ was offered, how could it be a Sacrifice of such infinite value, as to the justice of God, for all the sinnes of all the Elect, whereunto it was appointed.

Asw. Though the thing Sacrificed was but finite, yet the person sacrificing was infinite; and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Acti∣on followes the Agent; that is, our Mediatour 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whence the Sacrifice was of infinite value.

And this is the second consideration of the Death of Christ, it was a Sacrifice; what is the peculiar influence of his death as a Sacrifice, into the satisfaction he hath made, shall be decla∣red afterwards▪

From what hath been spoken, a briefe Description of the* 1.39 Sacrifice of Christ, as to all the concernements of it maybe taken.

1. The person designing, appointing, and instituting this Sacri∣fice, is God the Father; as in grace contriving the great work of the Salvation of the Elect: A body did he prepare him; and therein he came to do his Will (Heb. 10. 9.) In that which he did, which the Sacrifices of old could not do. He came to fulfill the Will of God, his Appointment, & Ordinance, being his Servant therein; made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lesse then the Father, that he might be Obedient to death: God the Father sent him when He made his soule an offering.

2. He to whom it was offered, was God; God Essentially con∣sidered, with his glorious Property of Justice, which was to be attoned: He gave himselefe a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour: Eph. 5. 2. that is, to attone Him being provoked, as we shall see afterwards.

3. The person Offering was Christ the Mediatour, God and man: He offered himselfe to God: Heb. 9. 14. And because He did it, who was God and man, and as God and man, God is sayd to redeeme his Church with his own blood, Act. 20. 28.

4. The matter of the sacrifice was his whole humane Nature, body and soule, called himselfe, as I have shewed, in sundry particulars.

5. The immediate efficient cause of his offering, and the de∣struction of that which he offered unto God, as before descri∣bed, was his own will: Lo! I come (saith he) to do thy will: and

no man (saith he) taketh my life from me; I lay down my life, and I have power to take it up againe, Joh. 10. 17, 18. What men or Divells did to him, as what he suffered from the Curse of the Law, comes under another Consideration, as his Death was a penalty: as it was a Sacrifice his own will was all the cause immediately effecting it.

6. The fire that was to set this Holocaust on a flame, was the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9. 14. Through the Eternall Spirit; that the fire which came down from Heaven, & was alwayes kept alive upon the Altar, was a type of the Holy Ghost, might easily be demonstrated. I have done it elsewhere. Now the Holy Spi∣rit did this in Christ; he was offered through the Eternall Spirit; as others were by fire.

7. The Scripture speakes nothing of the Altar, on which Christ was offered. Some assigne the Crosse; That of our Savi∣our is abundantly sufficient to evince the folly thereof: Math. 23. 18, 19. If the Crosse was the Altar, it was greater then Christ, and Sanctifyed him, which is Blasphemy. Besides▪ Christ himselfe is said to be an Altar. Heb. 13. 10. and he is said to Sanctify him∣selfe to be an offering or a Sacrifice Joh. 17. 19. So that indeed the Deity of Christ, that supported, bore up, and sanctifyed the humane nature as offered, was the Altar; and the Crosse was but an instrument of the Cruelty of man, that taketh place in the Death of Christ as it was a penalty, but hath no place in it as a Sacrifice.

That this Sacrifice of Christ was a Sacrifice of propitiation, as made by blood, as answering the Typicall Sacrifices of old; that the end and effect of it was Attonement or Reconciliation, shall elsewere be more fully manifested: the Discovery of it also will in part be made, by what in the ensuing Discourse shall be spoken about Reconciliation its selfe.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• * 1.2

  §. 2.
• * 1.3

  §. 3.
• * 1.4

  §. 4.
• * 1.5

  §. 5
• * 1.6

  Aristoph. in Plut.
• * 1.7

  1 Cor. 4. 13.
• * 1.8

  §. 6.
• * 1.9

  §. 7.
• * 1.10

  §. 8.
• * 1.11

  §. 9.
• * 1.12

  §. 10.
• * 1.13

  §. 11.
• * 1.14

  §. 12.
• * 1.15

  §. 13.
• * 1.16

  Psal. 51. 16.
• * 1.17

  §. 14.
• * 1.18

  §. 15.
• * 1.19

  §. 16.
• * 1.20

  §. 17.
• * 1.21

  §. 19.
• * 1.22

  §. 20.
• * 1.23

  Quodnam est discrimen in∣ter Veteris, & Novi foederis peccatorum expiationem?

  Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere, non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub vetere plurimùm, verum etiam longe praestantior, & excellen∣tior est. id vero duabus potis∣simum de causis: prior est, quod sub vetere foedere, iis tantum peccatis expiatio, per illa legalia Sacrificia, consti∣tuta fuit, quae per imprudenti∣am, vel per infirmitatem ad∣missa fuere, unde etiam infir∣mitates, & ignorantiae nuncu∣pabantur: verum pro peccatis gravioribus, quae transgressio∣nes erant mandati Dei mani∣festae, nullae sacrificia institutae fuerant, sed mortis poena fu∣it proposita. Quod si talia De∣us alicui condonabat, id non vi foederis fiebat, sed miseri∣cordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra foedus, & quando, & cui libuit exhibebat: sub novo vero foedere peccata ex∣piantur, non solum per impru∣dentiam & infirmitatem ad∣missas, verum etiam ea, quae apertissimorum Dei mandato∣rum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is, cui labi ad eum modum contige••it, in eo non pe••severet, verum per veram pae∣nitentiam resipiscat, nec ad il∣lud peccatum amplius relaba∣tur. P••sterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco foedere ad eum modum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena temporaria tantum ab iis, quorum peccata expiaban∣tur, tolleretur: sub Novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poenas temporarias, verum etiam aeter∣nas amo••eat, & loco paenarum, aeternam vitam in foedere promissam, iis quorum peccata fuerint ex∣piata offerat. De Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 6.
• * 1.24

  §. 21.
• * 1.25

  §. 22.
• * 1.26

  §. 23.
• * 1.27

  Qua ratione ver•• utrum{que} demonstras?

  Peccata quae sub vetere foe∣dere expiari non potuere omni•• sub Novo expiari testatur A∣postolus Paulus, in Actis, cap. 13. 38, 39. idem habetur Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. Quod vera ea ratione expien∣tur peccata sub novo foedere, ut etiam aeterna poena amoveatur, & vita aeterna donetur, habe∣tur Heb. 9. 12. ubi sup. Q. 7.
• * 1.28

  §. 24.
• * 1.29

  §. 25.
• * 1.30

  §. 26.
• * 1.31

  §. 27▪
• * 1.32

  §. 28.
• * 1.33

  Adde quod corpus mortale▪ quo Christus ante mortem, imo ante suum in caelum ascensum praeditus e••a••, ad hoc Sacer∣dotium obeundum, & sacrifi∣cium penitus a solvendum, ap∣tum non fuit; ideo{que} tunc de∣mum corpus, hu••c rei accom∣modatum, perfectum ei fuisse, divinus Author indicat, Heb. 10. 5. cum in mundum, nempe futurum illum, qui caelum est, ingrederetur. Volkel. de vera Relig: lib. 3. cap▪ 37. de Sac. Christi. p. 14••.
• * 1.34

  §. 29.
• * 1.35

  1 John 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 13.
• * 1.36

  §. 30.
• * 1.37

  §. 31.
• * 1.38

  §. 32.
• * 1.39

  §. 33.