.
SECT. 25, 26. ] PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 41
all sorts of men, even when they had lost allnotion and remembrance of the promise whereunto they were originally annexed; for they had a double advantage for the perpetuating themselves:—First, A suitableness untodhe general principle of giving an acknowledgment unto God, in a returnal of a portion of that all which comes from him. Secondly, They had a compliance with the accusation of con- science for sin, by an endeavour to transfer the guilt of it unto another. But their first original was pure divine and supernatural revelation, and not the light or condtict of nature, nor any such innate principle as Bellarmine imagineth. No such inseparable conjunction as is pretended between sacrifices and religion can hence be proved, see- ing they were originally an arbitrary institution, and that after there had been religion in the world. He proceeds, therefore, further to confirm his first proposition: “ Sacrificium cum ipsa religione natum est, et cum illa extinguitur; est igitur inter ea conjunctio plane neces- saria ;’—“ Sacrificing was born with religion, and dies with it; there is, therefore, between them a plain necessary conjunction.” So he. 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 they are born and die together, is to say the same thing twice over. He adds, therefore, his proof of the whole: “ Nam primi homines qui Deum coluisse leguntur filii Adami fuerunt, Cain et Abel, illi autem sacri- ficia obtulisse dicuntur,” Gen. iv.; whereon he proceeds unto other instances under the Old Testament. Now, it is plain that by this instance he hath overthrown his general assertion; for he excludes from proof the state of innocency, wherein there was unquestionably religion in the world, and that without sacrifices, if Cain and Abel were the first that offered them. He doth, therefore, by his in- stances neither prove what himself intends, nor touch upon our cause, that there were no sacrifices in the state of innocency, 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 unto the law of creation and the state of innocency. A sup- position of the entrance of sin, and what ensued thereon in the curse of the law, lie at the foundation of the designation of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. Now, concerning the fall of man, the nature of that sin whereby he fell, the propagation of it unto all mankind, the distress, misery, and ruin of the world thereby, I have at large discoursed in our former Exercitations, prefixed unto the exposition of the first two chapters of this Epistle." I have also in them’evinced in general, that it was not the will, purpose, or counsel of God, that
1 See vol. i. p. 141 of this edition of the Exposition. :
42 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXVII.
all mankind should utterly perish in that condition, as he had deter- mined concerning the angels that sinned, but from the very begin- ning he gave not only sundry intimations but 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. Building on these foundations, and having now removed some objections out of our way, it remains that we proceed to declare the especial original of the priesthood of Christ in the counsel of God, with respect unto the especial manuer of deliverance from sin and wrath designed therein.
EXERCITATION XXVII.
THE ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD.
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 here first revealed. 5. God speaks not “ more regio.” 6. Sentiments of the Jews on the words of this text inquired into and rejected. 7. Objections of Enjedinus unto this testimony examined atlarge. 8. Personal internal transactions in the holy Trinity with respect to mankind proved. 9. Prov. viii. 22-31—Corrupt translation of the LX X.—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. 12, The application of this scripture to the Son of God vindicated at large from the objections of Enjedinus. 13. Christ, with respect to God the Fa- ther, said to be P28 Oss ; in what sense. 14. The mutual delight and satis- faction of God and Wisdom in each other; what they were, and with respect -whereunto, Ps. xl. 7, 8. 15. The joy and delight of Wisdom with the sons of men had respect to their redemption and salvation. 16. Objections of the Jews and Mohammedans to the testimony given to Christ as the Son of God, Ps. ii. 7. 17. The opposition of Enjedinus to the same purpose removed. 18. Eternal transactions between the Father and Son about the redemption of mankind hence confirmed. ;