« ForrigeFortsæt »
gination which led Bellarmin to put in his frivolous and captious exception, to the sufficiency of this sacrifice in the Christian religion. For he pretends and pleads that this sacrifice did not belong to the Christian church, which was founded in the resurrection of Christ, before which Christ had offered himself; as also that this sacrifice was but once offered, and now çeaseth sq to be, so that if we have no other sacrifice but this, we have none at all. For notwithstanding these bold and sophistical objections, our apostle sufficiently instructs us, that we have yet an High Priest, and an altar, and a sacrifice, and the blood of sprinkling, all in heavenly things and places. And on purpose to prevent this cayil, about this sacrifice not being offered again, he tells us that it is always Gwoue xakt w gorputos, living and new şlain. And beyond all contradiction he determined either this one sacrifice of Christ to be insufficient, or that of the mass to be useless. For he shews that where any sacrifices will make perfect them that come to God by them, there no more will be offered. And it is an undoubted evidence that no sacrifice hath obtained its end perfectly, as to making reconciliation for sin, where any other sacrifice properly so called doth come after it. Nor doth he prove the insufficiency of Aaronical sacrifices for this purpose, by any other argument, but that they were offered from year to year, and that another was to succeed in their room when they were over, Heb. x. 1-5. And this upon the supposition of the Romanists, and the necessity of their Missatical sacrifice falls as heavily on the sacrifice of Christ, as on those of the law. It is apparent therefore that they must either let go the sacrifice of Christ as insufficient, or that of their mass as useless, for they can have no consistency in the same religion. Wherefore they leave out the sacrifice of Christ, as that which was offered before the church was founded.' But the tộuth is, the church was founded therein, And I desire to know of these men, whether it be the outward act of sacrificing, or the efficacy of a sacrifice that is so necessary unto all religion? If it be the outward act that is of such use and necessity, how great was the privilege of the church of the Jews above that of the Romanists. For whereas these pretend but unto one sacrifice, and that one so dark, obscure and unintelligible, that the furtar and startet of their Sacra cannot possibly agree amongst themselves what it is, nor wherein it doth consist. The Jews had many, plain, express, visible sacrifices, which the whole church looked on, and consented in. But this whole pretence is vain ; nor is any thing of the least worth in religion, but on the account of its efficacy to its end. And that we have with us the continual efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, in all our religious worship and approaches unto God, the Scripture is full and express. But these things do not belong to our present subject, the consideration of them will else§ 25. As to our present purpose, I deny the major proposition of Bellarmin's Syllogism, if taken absolutely and universally, as it must be, if any way serviceable to his cause. This therefore he proves. Propositio (saith he) prima probatur, primo ex co quod fere omnis Religio seu verá seu falsa omni loco et tempore semper ad cultum Dei Sacrificia adhibuerit : Hinc enim colligitur, id prodire ex lumine et instinctu Nature, et ésse primum quoddam principium a Deo nobis ingenitum. It is proved from hence that almost all religion, whether true or false, in all places and times, hath made use of sacrifices in the worship of God. For hence it is gathered, that this proceeds from the light and instinct of nature, being a certain principle inbred in us from God himself.' And hereon he proceeds to confute Chemnitius, who assigned the origin of sacrificing among the heathen, to an instinct of corrupt nature, which is the root of all superstition. I shall not now inquire expressly into the origin of all sacrifices, it must be done elsewhere. We here discourse only concerning those that are properly so called, and not only so, but propitiatory also ; for such he contendeth his mass to be. It is indeed suitable to the light of nature that of what we have left in our possession, we should offer to the service of God, where he hath appointed a way for us to do so. But it is denied that in the state of innocence, he had appointed that to be by the way of sacrificing sensible things. All eucharistical offerings would have then been moral and spiritual in pure acts of the mind, and its devotion in them. Sacrifices of or for, atonement were first instituted, and other offerings had their name from thence, by reason of some kind of analogy. And so far as thank-offerings were materially the same with those which were propitiatory, consisting in the death and blood of any creature, they had in them the nature of a propitiation also. That these were instituted after the fall, I have elsewhere sufficiently proved, Being therefore at first enjoined to mankind in general, as tokens of the recovery promised, they were retained and perpetuated amongst all sorts of men, even when they had lost all notion and remembrance of the promise, to which they were originally annexed. For sacrifices had a double advantage for the perpetuating themselves. First, A suitableness to the general principle of giving an acknowledgment to God, in a return of a portion of that all which comes from him. Secondly, They had a compliance with the accusation of conscience for sin, by an endeavour to transfer the guilt of it to another. But their first origin was entirely from divine and supernatural revelation, and not from the light or guidance of nature, nor of any such innate principle as Bellarmin imagines. No such inseparable conjunction, as is pretended, ber tween sacrifices and religion can hence be proved; seeing they were originally an arbitrary institution, and that after there had been religion in the world. He thus proceeds further to confirm his first proposition. Sacrificium cum ipsa Religione na tum est, et cum illa extinguitur; est igitur inter ea conjunctio plane necessaria. Sacrificing was born with religion, and dies with it; there is therefore between them a conjunction plainly necessary. This is only a repetition of the proposition in other words. For to say that there is such a conjunction between sacrifices and religion, that the one cannot be without the other, and to say that they are born and die together, is to repeat the same thing. He adds therefore his proof of the whole. Nam primi homines qui Deum coluisse leguntur Filii Adami fuerunt, Cain et Abel, illi autem sacrificia obtulisse dicuntur, Gen. iv. Afterwards he proceeds to other instances under the Old Testament. Now it is plain that by this first instance he has overthrown his general assertion. For he excludes from his proof the state of innocence, when unquestionably there was religion in the world, and that without sacrifices, if Cain and Abel were the first that offered them. He therefore by his instances doth neither prove what he proposed, nor touch upon our cause, that there were no sacrifices in the state of innocence, though that state is necessarily included in his general assertion.
$ 26. From what hath been spoken it appears, that there was no decree, no counsel of God concerning either priest or sacrifice, with respect to the law of creation and the state of in
supposition of the entrance of sin, and of what ensued thereon in the curse of the law, lie at the foundation of the designation of the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ. Now concerning the fall of man, the nature of that sin whereby he fell, the propagation of it to all mankind, the distress, misery and ruin of the world thereby, I have at large discoursed in our former exercitations. I have also in them evinced in general, that it was not the will, purpose, or counsel of God, that all mankind should utterly perish in that condition, as He had determined concerning the angels that sinned; but that from the very beginning he had not only given various intimations, but also express testimonies of a contrary design. That therefore He would provide a relief for fallen man, that this relief was by the Messiah, whose coming and work He declared in a promise immediately upon the entrance of sin, 'hath been also demonstrated in those exercitations. Having removed some objections out of our way, it remains that we now build on these foundations. We proceed then to consider the special origin of the priesthood of Christ, in the counsel of God, with respect to the especial manner of deliverance from sin and wrath designed therein.
f 1. The design. $ 2. The end of God in his works in general : 'in the
creation of man. Personal transactions in the Holy Trinity concerning him. $ 3. Gen. i. 26. § 4. Plurality of Persons in the Holy Deity herc first revealed. $ 5. God speaks not more regio. $ 6. Sentiments of the Jews on the words of this text inquired into and rejected. § 7. Ob. jections of Eniedinus unto this testimony examined at large.' $ 8. Personal internal transactions in the Holy Trinity with respect to mankind, proved. $ 9. Prov. viii. 22. Corrupt translation of the LXX. Arian pretences rejected. § 10. The Jewish interpretation of this place discussed and rejected. Objections of the Socinians. § 11. A divine Person intended; proved from the text and context in sundry instances. Ø 12. The application of this Scripture to the Son of God, vindicated at large from the objections of Eniedinus. § 13. Christ, with respect to God the Father, said to be rinx 1588 ; in what sense. § 14. The mutual delight and satisfaction of God and Wisdom in each other; what they were, and with respect whereunto, Psal. xl. 8. $ 15. The joy and delight of wisdom with the sons of men, hath respect to their redemption and salvation. $16. Objeetions of the Jews and Mahometans to the testimony given to Christ as the Son of God, Psal. ii. 1. $ 17. The opposition of Eniedinus to the same purpose, removed. | 18. Eternal transactions between the Father and Son, about the redemption of man. kind, hence confirmed,
$1. From what hath been already discoursed, it is manifest that the counsel of God concerning the incarnation, the priesthood, and the sacrifice of his Son, had respect to sin, and to the deliverance of the elect from sin, and all its consequences. The same truth has also been particularly discussed and confirmed, in our Exposition of the second chapter of this Epistle. That which now lies before us, is to inquire more expressly into the nature of the counsels of God in this matter, and into their progress in execution. And as in this endeavour we shall carefully avoid all curiosity, or vain attempts to be wise above what is written, so on the other hand we shall study with sober diligence to declare and illustrate what is revealed on this subject, to the end that we may so increase in knowledge, as to be established in faith and obedience. To this end are our ensuing discourses designed.
§ 2. God, in the creation of all things, intended to manifest his nature in its being, existence, and essential properties, and therein to satisfy his wisdom and goodness. Accordingly, we
find his expressions concerning himself, in the work of creation suited to declare these things; see Isa. xl. 12-15. Also that the things themselves that were made, had in their nature and order such an impression of divine wisdom, goodness and power upon them, as made manifest the original cause from whence they did proceed. To this purpose discourseth our apostle, Rom. i. 19-21. Το γνωστον του Θεου φανερον εστιν εν αυτοις: and the Psalmist, Psal. xix. 1, 2. as do sundry other divine writers also. Wherefore the visible works of God, man only excepted, were designed for no other end, but to declare in general the nature, being, and existence of God. But in this nature there are three Persons distinctly subsisting. And herein consists the most incomprehensible and sublime perfection of the divine Being. The manifestation and glory then of this mystery, was intended in the creation of man. For therein God would glorify himself as subsisting in three distinct Persons, and himself in each of those Persons distinctly. This was not designed immediately in other parts of the visible creation, but in this, which was the complement and perfection of the other parts. And therefore the first express mention of a plurality of Persons in the divine nature, is in the creation of man. And therein alsó are personal transactions intimated, concerning the present and future condition of man.
This therefore is that which in the first place we shall evince, namely, that there were from all eternity, personal transactions in the Holy Trinity concerning mankind in their temporal and eternal condition, which transactions were first manifested in our creation.
$ 3. The first revelation of the counsels of God concerning the glorifying of himself in the making and disposal of man, is
. 097 0273 1774), “ And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according unto Our likeness; and let them have dominion. This was the counsel of God concerning the making of 57%, that is, not of that particular individual Person who was first created, and so called, but of the species or kind of creature, which in him he now proceeded to create. For the word Adam is used in this and the next chapter in a threefold sense. First, for the name of the individual man who was first created. He was called Adam from Adama, the ground, from whence he was taken, ch. ii. 19-21. ærgwros ex was goixos, 1 Cor. xv. 47. of the earth, earthly. Secondly, It is taken indefinitely for the man
. 027877: “And the Lord God created man,' not he whose name was Adam, for He Hajediah is never prefixed to any proper name, but the man indefinitely of whom he speaks. Thirdly, It denotes the species of mankind: so is it used in this place, for the reddition is in the plural number, “ And let them have
ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו .26