15. But because we have resolved on a particular examination of all that can be pretended in this matter on the behalf of our adver- saries, we may consider his plea at large in his own words: “ ql) Grotius ita verba ea proculdubio intelligit, ac si dictum esset sacri- ficiis moveri Deum, ut hominibus benefaciat, et expiatoriis quidem, ut remissionem peccatorum iis concedere velit. (2.) Hoc si in eam sententiam accipiatur in quam alias Grotius hujusmodi verba in nostro negotio sumere solet, ut significet, (3.) Deum iratum ae peenas expetentem, ita tamen ut non aversetur omnes ire deponende
SECT. 15.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 219
rationes, sacrificiis placari, et ad ignoscendum flecti. (4) Non est id de omnibus sacrificiis expiatoriis, etiam proprie dictis admittendum, imo de iis que proprie ita appellantur, (5.) Minus, quam de aliis ab homine profectis precibus scilicet, pcenitentia, animi humilitate seu cordis ac spiritus contritione. (6.) Neque enim sub lege eo pacto Deum movebant sacrificia ab ipso preescripta preesertim semper: sed cum Deus jam antea decrevisset se intervenientibus illis sacri- ficiis delicta et lapsus velle condonare, iis oblatis, (7.) vi decreti istius efiectus ille apud Deum consequebatur, etiamsi is actu non irasce- retur, imo ideo potius offerebantur sacrificia, ne, si forte neglige- rentur, irasceretur, quam ut jam iratus placaretur. Quod si vocem movendi, et ceteras ei similes, eo modo hic accipias, quem nos alibi
etiam explicuimus,,ut significent conditione prestita apud Deum
efficere, ut in decreti sui effectum hominibus benefaciat, et reatum peccati deleat pcenamque avertat, sive per se, ut sub lege, sive per alium ut novi feederis tempore, id quod Grotius ait, tum de sacri- ficiis legalibus, tum etiam de morte Christi; (8.) quam sacrificium, et quidem expiatorium esse fatemur, licet per 4 in hoc genere non- dum perfectum, verum est.”
Ans. (1.) There was no need at all of this and ambiguous repetition of the whole state of the controversy about the nature and use of sacrifices in this place, where the argument concerned only the proper object of Christ’s sacerdotal actings And he knew well enough the mind of Grotius, as to the sense of what he asserted; only it was necessary to retreat into this long diversion, to avoid the force of the testimonies produced against him. (2.) The sense which we plead
for, as to the expiation of our sins by Jesus Christ, is plain and evi-
dent. God was the author and giver of the law and the sanction thereof; the supreme, righteous, holy rector, governor, judge of all persons and actions relating thereunto; the dispenser of the rewards and punishments, according to the sense and sentence of it Man transgressed this law by sin, and did what lay in him thereby to cast
off the government of God. This rendered him obnoxious unto the
Sentence, curse, death, and punishment, threatened in the sanction
of the law; which God, as the righteous, holy, supreme governor of
all, was, on the account of his righteousness, authority, and veracity,
to execute. This respect of God towards the transgressors of his law the Scripture represents under the notion and expression of his anger against sin and sinners; which is nothing but the engage- ment of his justice to punish offenders. On this account God would not, and without the violation of his justice and veracity could not, forgive sin, or dismiss sinners unpunished, without an atonement
-made by an expiatory sacrifice; wherein his justice also was to be
satisfied and his law to be fulfilled. And this was done by the sacri-
220 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXUL
fice of Christ, according to the tenor and compact between God and him before described. (8.) The advantage that Crellius seeks from the words of Grotius, in the entrance of his discourse, of God’s being “angry with sinners, yet not so as to depose all thoughts of recon- ciliation,” will stand him in no stead; for he intended no more by them, but that although God was provoked, as the righteous goyver- nor of his creatures, yet he determined not absolutely to destroy them, when he had found a ransom: that is, provided his justice were satisfied, his honour repaired, his law fulfilled,—all which his own holiness and faithfulness required,—he would pardon sin, and take away the punishment from sinners. That whereby this was done was the sacrifice of Christ; whose object, therefore, must be God himself, and consequently he is so of all his sacerdotal actings. (4) All expiatory sacrifices did, in their way and kind, procure the remis- sion of sins by the way of atonement, and not otherwise. Nor can Crellius give any one instance to the contrary. Their first and princi- pal design was to atone and pacify anger, or to turn away wrath and punishment as due from the displeasure of God; and therefore their first effect was towar€ls God himself. (5.) The means on our part for the obtaining of the actual remission of sin, and a sense thereof in our consciences, as prayer, repentance, humiliation, contrition of heart and spirit, are not means of making atonement, wherein there is always the nature of compensation and satisfaction. If we apply ourselves unto God by them unto any such purpose, or rest upon them unto that end, we render them useless, yea, an abomination. Yea, they are all enjoined unto us on supposition of atonement made for sin in and by the blood of Christ; and. so they were from the foundation of the world. From the giving of the first promise, wherein the Lord Christ was a “lamb slain,” as to the efficacy of his future oblation, God forgave sins for his sake, and not otherwise. And the duties enjoined us in order unto actual remission, or a sense of it in our consciences, are all to be founded in the faith of that atonement, which is supposed, and is to be pleaded in them all; for in Christ alone it is that we have “redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” But all this is a diversion from the present argument and inquiry, which concerns only the proper object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, and not the nature of his sacri- fice, which shall be spoken unto elsewhere. And those very duties whereby we make application for actual remission or pardon, upon the atonement made, have God for their object also; and so must every thing which hath an influence of any kind into the pardon of sin. (6.) The account he gives concerning the influence of expiatory sacrifices in procuring the pardon of sin is false and sophistical. That God, not being angry with sin, should decree that upon the offering