428 VINDICI-ffi EVANGELIC^.
But they plead proof of Scripture for what they say, in the ensu- ing question: — •
Q. How dost thou demonstrate both these ?
A. That the sins which could not be expiated under' the old testament are all expiated under the new, Paul witnesseth, Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; and the same is also affirmed Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15 : but that sins are so expiated under the new testament as that also eternal punishment is removed, and life eternal given, we have Heb. ix. 12}
This work will speedily be at an issue. First, It is denied that Paul, Acts xiii. 88, 39, makes a distinction of sins, whereof some might be expiated by Moses' law, and others not. He says no more there than in this place to the Hebrews, — namely, that the legal 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 shadows of good things to come, the body being Christ, by whom alone all justification from sin is to be obtained. Absolutely, the sacrifices of the law expiated no sin, 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 typified), now actually exhibited.
Secondly, The two next places, of Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15, do ex- pressly condemn the figment they strive to establish by them, both of them assigning the pardon of sins that were past and their expia- tion 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 testament for substance to have been the same.
Thirdly, That the expiation under the new testament is accom- panied with deliverance from eternal punishment and a grant of life eternal is confessed; and so also was that under the old, or it was no expiation at all, that had respect neither to God nor the souls of men. But to proceed with the sacrifice of Christ.
This is the first thing I proposed : Christ being to offer sacrifice, was not to offer the sacrifices of the priests of old, because they could never bring about what he aimed at in his sacrifice. It was impos- sible in the nature of the thing itself, and they were expressly as to that end rejected of God himself.
2. Christ as a priest did never offer those sacrifices. It is true, as one made under the law, and whom it became to fulfil all right- eousness, he was present at them ; but as a priest he never offered
' " Qua ratione vero utrumque demonstras ? — Peccata quse sub vetere foedere ex- piari non potuere omnia sub novo expiari, testatur apostolus Paiilus in Act. cap. xiii. 38, 39, idem liabetur, Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15. Quod vero ea ratione exi^ientur pec- cata sub novo foedere ut ctiam aterna poena amoveatur, et vita asterna donetur, liabe- tur Heb. ix. 12, ubi sup." — Q. 6.
OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 429
them : for the apostle expressly affirms that he could not be a priest that had right to offer those sacrifices (as before) ; and he positively refuses the owning himself for such a priest, when, having cured the leprous man, he bade him go show himself to the priest, according to the law.
S. What Christ did offer indeed, as his sacrifice, is nextly to be mentioned. This the apostle expresseth in that which is asserted in opposition to the sacrifices rejected: Heb. x. o, "But a body hast thou prepared me."
The words in the psalm are in the sound of them otherwise: Ps. xl. 6, 7 J?'^| D'J|?,— "Mine ears hast thou digged;" which the LXX. render, and the apostle from them, 2w/xa xarYiprieoi fioi, — " A body hast thou prepared me." Of the accommodation of the interpreta- tion to the original there is much contention. Some think here is an allusion to the custom among the Jews of boring the ear of him who was, upon his own consent, to be a servant for ever. Now, be- cause Christ took a body to be obedient and a servant to his Father, this is expressed by the boring of the ear ; which therefore the LXX, render 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, iTJI signifies not only, in its first sense, to " dig," but also to "prepare;" and is so rendered by the LXX. Now, whereas the original expresseth only the ears, which are the organ by which we hear and become obedient (whence to hear is sometimes as much as to be obedient), it mentions the ears synecdochically for the whole body, which God so prepared for obedience to himself; and that which the original expressed synecdochically, the LXX., and after them the apostle, rendered .more plainly and fully, naming the whole body wherein he obeyed, when the ears were only expressed, whereby he learned obedience.