SECT. 15. ] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 221
of sacrifices he would pardon it, and would have such sacrifices offered, not because he was angry, but that he might not be so, is a vain imagination; for all sacrifices were offered for sins that were past, and all application we can make unto God by the sacrifice of Christ for the pardon of sin respects it as past. And therefore were sacrifices instituted to make atonement; that is, to avert and turn away wrath already deserved and due to the offender. To say this was done, not because God was angry at sin, but that he might not be so, when it was already committed, is inconsistent with truth and reason: for God is angry with sin because it is committed; and if he be not so, he is never angry with it. That which we intend hereby is, that he forbids every sin, and hath annexed a threatening of punishment unto that prohibition. This is his anger. (7.) That expression, “vi decreti,” that God pardons sin by virtue of his de- eree, contains sundry secrets of these men’s doctrine. For it is inti- mated that all that belongs unto the expiation of sin by sacrifices was a mere free constitution; nothing in them, nothing which they had any respect unto, or in the atonement made by them, was any way necessary on the account of the righteousness or holiness of God. For this decree of God is nothing but a voluntary constitution of this order of things, that sacrifices should go before remission, and not contribute any thing thereunto. There is therefore nothing in that discourse, “ Conditione prestita apud Deum efficere ut vi decreti sui,” etc., but that sacrifices, by God’s appointment, were an act of worship antecedent to the remission of sins. It is true, there is no- thing done, in the whole matter of the expiation of sin, but it depends on God’s decree and appointment; but the things disposed of by virtue of that decree have this relation one to another, that the sac- rifice of Christ shall be, and is, the procuring cause of the pardon of sin. God may therefore be said to pardon sin “ in decreto suo,” as the original disposing cause; but he doth it not without respect to the sacrifice of Christ, as the meritorious procuring cause. It is not, therefore, merely an antecedent condition, making way for the accom- plishment of a voluntary decree; but it is a moral cause, appointed of God in his decree for the effecting of pardon. (8.) I wonder with what confidence he here affirms that the death of Christ was an ex- piatory sacrifice, when he knew himself that he did not believe it so to be. That Christ offered but one sacrifice both they and we agree. But that this was not in bis death, that it was in heaven, when he pre- sented himself unto God;—that indeed it consists in the power which he hath, as glorified and exalted, to free us from the punishment due unto sin,—is the sum of what he pleads for in this part of his book. Both here and elsewhere he endeavours to prove that Christ was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, that his death was only a pre-
222 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXIII.
requisite condition (and so was his life also) unto the offering of him- self. But from all these open contradictions he shelters himself by saying that it was not as yet perfect in this kind. But why doth he say that it was not a perfect sacrifice, while he believes that it was none at all? Or if it be not a perfect sacrifice, was it a part of the perfect sacrifice that was afterwards completed in heaven? If it was so, then was Christ a priest whilst he was on the earth,—then did he offer himself unto God in his death,—then was God the object of that sacerdotal act, as we contend and plead for. If these things belong not unto it, then it was neither a perfect sacrifice nor imper- fect, neither complete nor incomplete, neither part of a sacrifice nor the whole; which we shall find him granting in his next words:—
16. “Sed si loquaris de (1.) sacrificio seu oblatione Christi expia- toria perfecta, quam in ccelis peragit, quamque D. auctor ad Heb. explicat, et Grotius qui eam ostensionis appellat, agnoscit; de ea aliquid amplius dici debet. (2.) Neque enim ea ad remissionem peccatorum intervenit, tanquam nuda quedam conditio, aut res ad alterum tantum, qui remissionem reipsa preestet, aliqua ratione im- pellendum comparata; sed potissimum tanquam vera causa efficiens que vi sua remissionem peccatorum nobis a Deo decretam preestat; et efficacia sua eorum vim quam ad nos damnandos et divinis sup- pliciis obnoxios reddendos habent, extinguit ac delet.”
Ans. As the former discourse was a mere diversion from the pre- sent question and argument, so this is partly a begging of the question in general, and partly a concession of what he labours to avoid the inconvenience of. For,—(1.) It is a plain begging of the main question, to say and suppose that the perfect expiatory sacri- fice of Christ consisted only in what he performed in heaven; the contrary whereunto we have sufficiently proved before, and which they shall never evince whilst the Scripture is owned to be the word of God. (2.) The latter part of his discourse plainly grants what he would seem to deny, but proves it not. He denies that the sacrifice of Christ respects God go much as a condition pre-re- quired unto the forgiveness of sin. But he will have it to be the efficient cause of pardon; that is, the Lord Christ, being intrusted with power from God unto that end and purpose after his ascension into heaven, doth take away our sin, or free and deliver us from the punishment due unto it. Now, though this be true, yet this is not the oblation or sacrifice of himself. Nor can any man reconcile the notion of a sacrifice with this actual efficiency in delivering us from the punishment of sin, so as that they should be the same. Hereof it is granted that we, and not God, are the first and immediate object; but that the oblation or sacrifice of Christ consists herein is wholly denied, nor doth he here attempt to prove it so todo. (3.) What