8. Again, sacrifices require faith in the offerer of them: Heb. xi. 4, “ By faith Abel offered a sacrifice.” And faith in the subject respects its proper object, which is divine revelation. Men can be- lieve no more with divine faith than is revealed, and all our actings in faith must answer the doctrines of faith. Now, not to insist upon this particular, that sacrifices were not revealed before the fall (which that they were cannot be proved), I say that there was no doctrine in or belonging unto the covenant of creation that should directly or analogically require or intimate an acceptance of any such reli- gious worship as sacrifices. This might be manifested by a just con- sideration of the principles of that revelation which God made of himself unto man under the first covenant, and what was necessary
SECT. 8, 9.] PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. _ 21
for him to know that he might live unto God; but this I have done at large elsewhere, nor have I any thing of moment to add unto former discourses to this purpose. And this also renders it im- possible that there should be any sacrifices properly so called, and prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ, in the state of innocency.
9. But these things are opposed, and must be vindicated. And this opposition is made unto both the positions laid down, the one concerning a priest, the other concerning sacrifices: for some have been and are of a mind, that “though man had not sinned, yet the Son of God should have taken our nature on him,” both for the mani- festation of the glory of God and the cherishing of the creation; and if so, he should have been in some sense the priest of the world:
And those of this persuasion are of two sorts:—First, Such as ac- knowledge a pre-existence of the Lord Christ in a divine nature. These affirm that [even] had not sin entered into the world, he should have been so made flesh by the uniting of our nature unto himself in his own person, as now it iscome to pass. This some of the ancient schoolmen inclined unto, as Alexander ab Ales., Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Rupertus; as it is opposed by Aquinas, p. 3, q. 3; Bonaven- tura in Sentent., lib. iii. dist. i. ar. 2, gq. 1, and others. Immediately on the Reformation this opinion was revived by Osiander, who maintained that Adam was said to be made in the image of God, because he was made in that nature and shape whereunto the Son of God was designed and destinated. And he also was herein op- posed by Calvin, Instit. lib. ii. cap. xii, lib. iii. cap. xi.; by Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23; and Schlusselburgius, lib. vi. Yet some are still of this judgment, or seem so to be.
The other sort are the Socinians, who contend that God would haye given such a head unto the creation as they fancy Christ to be; for as they lay no great weight on the first sin, so they hope to evince by this means that the Lord Christ may discharge his whole office without making any atonement for sin by sacrifice. And this, with most of their other opinions, they have traduced from the ancient Pelagians, as an account is given in this particular by Cas- sianus de Incarnatione, lib. i. p. 1241. “ Quo factum est,” saith he of the Pelagians, “ut in majorem quoque ac monstruosiorem insaniam prorumpentes, dicerent Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, hunc in mundum, non ad prestandum humano generi redemptionem, sed ad preebenda bonorum actuum exempla venisse; videlicet, ut discip- linam ejus sequentes homines, dum per eandem virtutis viam ince- derent, ad eadem virtutum praemia pervenirent.” Those who assert sacrifices to have been necessary in the state of innocency are the Romanists. Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, and others, do expressly contend for it. And these also have their peculiar design in this
22 THE ORIGIN OF THE [EXERC. XXVI.
their peculiar opinion; for they endeavour to establish a general maxim, “That proper sacrifices are indispensably necessary unto all religious worship,” thereby to make way for their missatical oblation. I shall consider the pretences of both sorts, and so proceed with our design.
10. As to the first opinion, concerning the incarnation of the Son of God without respect unto sin and redemption, there are many pretences given unto it, which shall be afterwards particularly con- sidered. They say that “the manifestation of the glory of God required that he should effect this most perfect way of it, that so he might give a complete expression of his image and likeness. His love and goodness also were so perfectly to, be represented, in the union of a created nature with his own. And herein, also, God would satisfy himself in the contemplation of this full communication of himself unto our nature. Besides, it was necessary that there should be a head appointed unto the whole creation, to conduct and guide it, man especially, unto its utmost end.” And sundry other things they allege out of the Bible of their own imaginations. It is granted that even in that state all immediate transactions with the creatures should have been by the Son; for by him, as the power and wisdom of God, were they made, John i. 3; Heb. i. 2; Col. i. 16,17. He, therefore, should have immediately guided and conducted man unto his happiness, and that both by confirming him in his obedience and by giving him his reward; an express document whereof we have in the angels that sinned not. But for the opinion of his being in- carnate without respect unto redemption and a recovery from sin