Thus they. Some brief animadversions will give the reader a clear account of this discourse: — Sundry things are here splendidly sup- posed by our catechists, than which nothing could be imagined or in- vented more false ; as, that the covenant was not the same for sub- stance under the old and new testament, before and after the coming of Christ in the flesh; that those under the old testament were not pardoned or saved by Christ; that death temporal was all that was threatened by the law; that God forgave sin, and not in or by the covenant; that there were no promises of eternal life under the old testament, etc. On these and the like goodly principles is this whole discourse erected. Let us now consider their assertions.
The first is, That expiation by legal sacrifices was only for some
sins, and not for all, as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not great
crimes: wherein, First, They suppose that the legal sacrifices did
by themselves and their own efficacy expiate sin ; which is directly
' " Quodnam est discrimen inter veteris, et novi foederis peccatorum expiationem ? — Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub vclere plurimum, verum ctiam longe prfestantior et cxcellentior est: id vei'o duabus potissiraum de causis. Prior est, quod sub vetere foedere, iis tantum pcccatis expiatio, per ilia logalia sacrificia, constituta fuit, qu£e per imprudentiam vol per infii'mitatem admissa fuere, unde etiam infirmitates et ignorantice nuncupabantur. Verum pro pec- catis gravioribiis, q\i£e transgressiones erant mandati IXn maiiifestfe, nulla sacrificia instituta fuerant, sed mortis poena fuit proposita. Quod si talia Deus alicui condo- nabat, id non vi foederis fiebat, sed misericordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra foedus, et quando ct cui libuit exhihcbat. Sub novo vero foedere pcccata expiantur, non solum per imprudentiam et infirmitatem admissa, verum ctiam ea qufe apertissimorum Dei niandatorum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is cui labi ad eum niodum coutigerit, in CO non pcrseveret, verum per veram poenitciitiara resipiscat, nee ad illud peccatum am- plius relabatur. Posterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco foedere ad cum modum pec- catorum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena tempoiaria tantum ab iis quorum peccata ex- piabantur tollerctur; sub novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poeiias temporarias, verum ctiam a;ternas amoveat, et loco popiiariuu, pctcrn.un vitam, in foedere promissam, iis quorum pcccata fuerint cxpiata, ofFcrat."
OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 427
contrary to the discourse of the apostle now insisted on. Secondly, Their affirmation hereon is most false. Aaron, making an atonement for sin, "confessed over the goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins," Lev. xvi. 21; and, besides, all manner of sins are comprised under these expressions, " ignorances and infirmities."
Secondly, They say, " For greater sins there was then no expia- tion, but death was threatened to them." But, First, Then none that ever committed such sins were saved ; for without expiation there is no salvation. Secondly, Death was threatened and inflicted without mercy for some sins, as the law with its judicial additaments was the rule of the judaical polity, and for those sins there was no sacrifice for a deliverance from death temporal ; but death was threat- tened to every sin, small and great, as the law was a rule of moral obedience unto God; and so in respect of sacrifices there was no distinction. This difference of sacrifices for some sins, and not for others, in particular, did depend merely on their use by God's ap- pointment in the commonwealth of that people, and had no regard to the spiritual expiation of sin, which they typified.
Thirdly, That God forgave the sins of his people of old by singu- lar mercy, and not by virtue of his covenant, is a bold figment. God exercises no singular mercy but in the covenant thereof, Eph. ii. 12.
Fourthly, Their condition of expiation (by the way) under the new testament, " That the sinner fall not again into the same sin," is a mat- ter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discuss it.
Fifthly, That the expiation under the old testament reached only to the removal of temporal punishment is another imagination of our catechists. It was death eternal that was threatened as the punish- ment due to the transgression of the law, as it was the rule of obedi- ence to God, as hath been proved, even the death that Christ deli- vered us from, Rom. v, 12, etc.; Heb. ii. 14, 15. God was atoned by those sacrifices, according to their way of making atonement. Lev. xvi. 30; so that the punishment avoided was eternal punishment. Neither is this, indeed, spoken by our catechists as though they believed any punishment should be eternal ; but they only hide them- selves in the ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they intend thereby. The vpurov -^^^svdog of this discourse is, that expia- tion by sacrifices was no other than what was done really by the sacrifices themselves ; so everting their typical nature and institution^ and divesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they did represent.
Sixthly, It is confessed that there is a difference between the expia- tion under the old testament and that under the new, but this is of application and manifestation, not of impetration and procurement. This is " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever."