• Contents
  • Part 4. Concerning the Sacerdotal Office of Christ
  • Part 5. Concerning a Day of Sacred Rest
  • Summary of Observations Drawn From the Exposition of the Epistl
• Part 4 — Concerning the Sacerdotal Office of Christ
  • Exercitation 25. - The Office of Priesthood.
  • Exercitation 26. - Of the Origin of the Priesthood of Christ.
  • Exercitation 27. - The Original of the Priesthood of Christ in the Counsel of God.
  • Exercitation 28. - Federal Transactions Between the Father and the Son.
  • Exercitation 29. - The Necessity of the Priesthood of Christ on the Supposition Of Sin and Grace.
    • A Digression
  • Exercitation 30. - The Necessity of the Priesthood of Christ on the Supposition Of Sin and Grace.
  • Exercitation 31. - The Nature of the Priesthood of Christ.
  • Exercitation 32. - The Nature of the Priesthood of Christ.
  • Exercitation 33. - Of the Acts of the Priesthood of Christ, Their Object, With The Time and Place of its Exercise.
  • Exercitation 34. - Prefigurations of the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ.
    • An Advertisement Unto the Reader.
• Part 5. — Concerning a Day of Sacred Rest
  • To the Reader.
  • Exercitation 1. - Differences Concerning a Day of Sacred Rest — Principles Directing to the Observance of It.
  • Exercitation 2. - Of the Original of the Sabbath.
  • Exercitation 3. - Of the Causes of the Sabbath.
  • Exercitation 4. - Of the Judaical Sabbath,
  • Exercitation 5. - Of the Lord’s Day.
  • Exercitation 6. - The Practical Observance of the Lord’s Day.
• Summary
  • Chapters 1, 2.
  • Chapter 3., 4:1-13
  • Chapter 4:14-16, 5.-8.
  • Chapters 9., 10:1-18.
  • Chapters 10:19-39, 11.
  • Chapters 12., 13.
• Footnotes

THE JOHN OWEN COLLECTION

EXERCITATIONS ON THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

PARTS 4 & 5

1. Excellence and usefulness of this Epistle — Doctrine of the priesthood of Christ fully revealed and taught therein alone. 2. This doctrine abstruse and mysterious. 3. The manner of the handling of it by the apostle; that now proposed. 4. Doctrine of the priesthood of Christ variously opposed and prayed, by Papists, Socinians, and others. 5. Other reasons of handling it in these Exercitations — Prefigurations of it. 6, 7. ˆ heKo, a priest — Signification

of the word, Psalm 110. 4. 8. ˆ hk, to divine — Divination and prognostication by priests. 9. Of the priests of Egypt. 10. Rulers called cohanim, and why — Cohen properly & sacrificer. 11. Melchizedek the first priest, a sacrificer; corruption of the Targum — Of his bringing forth bread and wine — The tenth of the spoils offered to God. 12. Institution of a priesthood under the law to offer sacrifice — A priest and a sacrificer the same.

1. AMONGST the many excellencies of this Epistle unto the Hebrews, which render it as useful to the church as the sun in the firmament is unto the world, the revelation that is made therein concerning the nature, singular pre-eminence, and use of the PRIESTHOOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, may well be esteemed to deserve the first and principal place; for whereas the whole matter of the sacrifice that he offered, and the atonement that he made thereby, with the inestimable benefits which thence redound unto them that do believe, depend solely hereon, the excellency of the doctrine hereof must needs be acknowledged by all who have any interest in these things. It is indeed, in the substance of it, delivered in some other passages of the books of the New Testament, but yet more sparingly and obscurely than any other truth of the same or a like importance. The Holy Ghost reserved it unto this as its proper place, where, upon the consideration of the institutions of the old testament and their removal out of the church, it might be duly represented, as that which gave an end unto them in their accomplishment, and life unto those ordinances of evangelical worship which were to succeed in their room. When our Lord Jesus says that he came to “give his life a ransom for many,” <8> Matthew 20:28, he had respect unto the sacrifice that he had to offer as a priest. The same also is intimated where he is called “The Lamb of God,” <430129> John 1:29; for he was himself both priest and sacrifice. Our apostle also mentioneth his sacrifice and his offering of himself unto God, <490502> Ephesians 5:2; on the account whereof he calleth him “a propitiation,” <450325> Romans 3:25; and mentioneth also his “intercession,” with the benefits thereof, <450834> Romans 8:34. The dearest testimony to this purpose is that of the apostle John, who puts together both the general acts of his sacerdotal office, and intimates withal their mutual relation, <620201> 1 John 2:1, 2; for his intercession as our “advocate” with his Father respects his oblation as he was a “propitiation for our sins.” So the same apostle tells us to the same purpose, that he “washed us in his own blood,” <660105> Revelation 1:5, when he expiated our sins by the sacrifice of himself. These are, if not all, yet the principal places in the New Testament wherein immediate respect is had to the priesthood or sacrifice of Christ. But in none of them is he called “a priest,” or “an high priest,” nor is he said in any of them to have taken any such office upon him; neither is the nature of his oblation or intercession explained in them, nor the benefits rehearsed which accrue unto us from his discharge of this office in a peculiar manner. Of what concernment these things are unto our faith, obedience, and consolation, — of what use unto us in the whole course of our profession, in all our duties and temptations, sins and sufferings, — we shall, God assisting, declare in the ensuing Exposition. Now, for all the acquaintance we have with these and sundry other evangelical mysteries belonging unto them or depending on them, with all the light we have into the nature and use of Mosaical institutions, and the types of the old testament, which make so great a part of the Scripture given and continued for our instruction, we are entirely obliged unto the revelation made in and by this Epistle.

1. And this doctrine, concerning the priesthood of Christ and the sacrifice that he offered, is on many accounts deep and mysterious. This our apostle plainly intimates in sundry passages of this Epistle. With respect hereunto he saith, the discourse he intended was dusermh>neutov, “hard to be uttered,” — or rather, hard to be understood when uttered, <580511> Hebrews 5:11; as also another apostle, that there are in this Epistle dusno>nta> tina, <610316> 2 Peter 3:16, “some things hard to be understood,” which relate hereunto. Hence he requires that those who attend unto this doctrine should be past the condition of living on “milk” only, or being contented with the first rudiments and principles of religion; and that they be able to digest “strong meat,” by having “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil,” <580512> Hebrews 5:12-14. And when he resolves to proceed in the explication of it, he declares that he is leading them “on unto perfection,” <580601> Hebrews 6:1, or to the highest and most perfect doctrines in the mystery of Christian religion. And several other ways he manifests his judgment, as of the importance of this truth, and how needful it is to be known, so of the difficulty there is in coming to a right and full understanding of it. And all these things do justify an especial and peculiar inquiry into it.

1. Now, although our apostle, in his excellent order and method, hath delivered unto us all the material concernments of this sacred office of Christ, yet he hath not done it in an entire discourse, but in such a way as his subject-matter and principal design would admit of, and indeed did necessitate. He doth not in any one place, nor upon any one occasion, express and teach the whole of the doctrine concerning it, but, as himself speaks in another case, polumerw~v kai< polutro>pwv, “by various parts,” or degrees, and “in sundry ways,” he declares and makes known the several concernments of it: for this he did partly as the Hebrews could bear it; partly as the series of his discourse led him to the mention of it, having another general end in design; and partly as the explanation of the old Aaronical institutions and ordinances, which, for the benefit of them that still adhered unto them, he aimed at, required it of him. For me to have undertaken the discourse of the whole upon any particular occasion, would have lengthened out a digression too much, diverting the reader in his

2. perusal of the Exposition; and had I insisted on the several parks and concernments of it as they do occur, I should have been necessitated unto a frequent repetition of the same things. Neither way could I have given an entire representation of it, whereby the beauty and the symmetry of the whole might be made evident. This, therefore, inclined my thoughts, in the first place, to comprise a summary of the entire doctrine concerning it in these previous Exercitations. From hence, as the reader may take a prospect of it singly by itself, so he may, if he please, carry along much insight with him from it into the most abstruse passages in the whole Epistle. And this, added unto what we have discoursed on <580102> Hebrews 1:2, concerning the kingly right and power of Christ, will give a more full and complete account of these his two offices than, it may be, hath as yet been attempted by any.
1. Moreover, the doctrine concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of the Lord Christ hath in all ages, by the craft and malice of Satan, been either directly opposed or variously corrupted; for it contains the principal foundation of the faith and consolation of the church, which are by him chiefly maligned. It is known in how many things and by how many ways it hath been obscured and depraved in the Papacy. Sundry of them we have occasion to deal about in our exposition of many passages of the Epistle; for they have not so much directly opposed the truth of the doctrine, as, disbelieving the use and benefit of the thing itself unto the church, they have substituted various false and superstitious observances to effect the end whereunto this priesthood of Christ and his holy discharge thereof are alone of God designed. These, therefore, I shall no otherwise consider but as their opinions and practices occur occasionally unto us, either in these Exercitations or in the Exposition ensuing. But there is a generation of men, whom the craft of Satan hath stirred up in this and the foregoing age, who have made it a great part of their preposterous and pernicious endeavors in and about religion to overthrow this whole office of the Lord Christ, and the efficacy of the sacrifice of himself depending thereon. This they have attempted with much subtilty and diligence, introducing a metaphorical or imaginary priesthood and sacrifice in their room; so, robbing the church of its principal treasure, they pretend to supply the end of it with their own fancies. They are the Socinians whom I intend. And there are more reasons than one why I could not omit a strict examination of their reasonings and objections against this great part of the mystery of the gospel. The reputation of parts, industry, and learning, which the bold

2. curiosity of some hath given unto them, makes it necessary, at least upon unavoidable occasions, to obviate the insinuation of their poison, which that opens a way for. Besides, even among ourselves, they are not a few who embrace and do endeavor to propagate their opinions. And the same course, with their faces seeming to look another way, is steered by the Quakers, who have at last openly espoused almost all their pernicious tenets, although in some things as yet they obscure their sentiments in cloudy expressions, as wanting will or skill to make a more perspicuous declaration of them. And there are others also, pretending unto more sobriety than those before mentioned, who do yet think that these doctrines concerning the offices and mediation of Christ are, if not unintelligible by us, yet not of any great necessity to be insisted on; for of that esteem are the mysteries of the gospel grown to be with some, with many among us. With respect unto all these, added unto the consideration of the edification of those that are sober and godly, I esteemed it necessary to handle this whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ distinctly, and previously unto our exposition of the uses of it as they occur in the Epistle.
1. There are also sundry things which may contribute much light unto this doctrine, and be useful in the explication of the terms, notions, and expressions, which are applied unto the declaration of it, that cannot directly and orderly be reduced under any singular text or passage in the Epistle. Many dawnings there were in the world unto the rising of this Sun of Righteousness, — many preparations for the actual exhibition of this High Priest unto the discharge of his office. And some of these were greatly instructive in the nature of this priesthood, as being appointed of God for that purpose. Such was the use of sacrifices, ordained from the foundation of the world, or the first entrance of sin; and the designation of persons in the church unto the office of a figurative priesthood, for the performance of that service. By these God intended to instruct the church in the nature and benefit of what he would after accomplish, in and by his Son Jesus Christ. These things, therefore, – that is, what belonged unto the rite of sacrificing and the Mosaical priesthood, – must be taken into consideration, as retaining yet that light in them which God had designed them to be communicative of. And, indeed, our apostle himself reduceth many of the instructions which he gives us in the nature of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ unto those institutions which were designed of old to typify and represent them. Besides all these, there may be observed sundry things in the common usages of mankind about this office, and the

2. discharge of it in general, that deserve our consideration; for although all mankind, left out of the church’s enclosure, through their own blindness and the craft of him who originally seduced them into an apostasy from God, had, as to their own interest and practice, miserably depraved all sacred things, every thing that belonged to the worship or service of the Divine Being, yet they still carried along with them something that had its first fountain and spring in divine revelation, and a congruity unto the inbred principles of nature. In these also, — where we can separate the wheat from the chaff, what was from divine revelation or the light of nature from what was of diabolical delusion or vain superstition, — we may discover what is useful and helpful unto us in our design. By these means may we be enabled to reduce all sacred truth in this matter unto its proper principles, and direct it unto its proper end. And these are the reasons why, although we shall have frequent occasion to insist on this office of Christ, with the proper acts and effects of it, in our ensuing Exposition, both in that part of it which accompanies these Exercitations and those also which, in the goodness and patience of God, may follow, yet I thought meet to handle the whole doctrine of it apart in preliminary discourses. And let not the reader suppose that he shall be imposed on with the same things handled in several ways twice over: for as the design of the Exposition is to open the words of the text, to give their sense, with the purpose and arguings of the apostle, applying all unto the improvement of our faith and obedience, whereof nothing will here fall under our consideration; so what may be here discoursed, historically, philologically, dogmatically, or eristically, will admit of no repetition or rehearsal in the expository part of our endeavors. These things being premised, as was necessary, we apply ourselves unto the work lying before us.
2. Our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament, as prophesied of, calledˆ heKo, “cohen:” <19B004> Psalm 110:4, µ l;wO[l] ˆ hekoAhT;aæ“

; — Thou art cohen for ever.” And <380613> Zechariah 6:13, wOas]KiAl[æ ˆ heko hy;h;w]; — “And he shall be cohen upon his throne.” We render it in both places “a priest ;” that is, iJereu>v, “sacerdos.” In the New Testament, — that is, in this Epistle, — he is frequently said to be iJereu>v and ajrciereu>v; which we likewise express by “priest” and “high priest,” — “ pontifex,” “pontifex maximus.” And the meaning of these words must be first inquired into.

hæ

7. ˆ K;, the verb, is used only in Piel, “cihen;” and it signifies “sacerdotio

fungi,” or “munus sacerdotale exercere,” — “to be a priest,” or “to exercise the office of the priesthood;” iJerourge>w. The LXX mostly render it by iJerateu>w, which is “sacerdotio fungor,” — “to exercise the priestly office;” although it be also used in the inauguration or consecration of a

<141114>₂

person to the priesthood. Once they translate it by leitourge>w, Chronicles 11:14, “in sacris operari,” — “to serve (or minister) in (or about) sacred things.” JIerourge>w is used by our apostle in this sense, and applied unto the preaching of the gospel: Eijv to< ei+nai> me letourgo<n jInsou~ Cristou~ eijv ta< e]qnh, iJerourgou~nta to< eujagge>lion tou~ Qou~, <451516> Romans 15:16; — “Employed in the sacred ministration of the gospel.” He useth both leitourgo>v and iJerourge>w metaphorically, with respect unto the prosfora> or sacrifice which he made of the Gentiles, which was also metaphorical. And iJerateu>w is used by Luke with respect unto the Jewish service in the temple, <420108> Luke 1:8; for originally both the words have respect unto proper sacrifices. Some would have the word ˆ heKe to be ambiguous, and to signify “officio fungi, aut ministrare in sacris aut politicis,” — “to discharge an office, or to minister in things sacred or political.” But no instance can be produced of its use to this purpose. Once it seems to be applied unto things not sacred. <236110> Isaiah 61:10, ˆ t;j;K,; — “As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments;” or, “adorneth himself with beauty;” that is, beautiful garments. If the word did originally and properly signify “to adorn,” it might be thence translated unto the exercise of the office of the priesthood, seeing the priests therein were, by especial

<022840> _Exodus

institution, to be clothed with garments tr,a;p]til]W dwbk;l], 28:40, “for glory and for beauty.” So the priests of Moloch were called “chemarims,” from the color of their garments, or their countenances made black with the soot of their fire and sacrifices. But this is not the proper signification of the word; only, denoting the priesthood to be exercised in beautiful garments and sundry ornaments, it was thence traduced to express adorning. The LXX render it by periti>qhmi, but withal acknowledge somewhat sacerdotal in the expression: JWv numfi>w| perie>qnke> moi mi>tran? — “He hath put on me” (restraining the action unto God) “a mitre as on a bridegroom;” which was a sacerdotal ornament. And Aquila, “as a bridegroom, iJerateume>nov stefa>nw|?.” — “ bearing the crown of the priesthood,” or discharging the priest’s office in a crown. And the Targum, observing the peculiar application of the word in this place, adds, akd anhkkw, — “And as an high priest is adorned.” All agree that an allusion is made to the garments and ornaments of the high priest. The place may be tendered, “As a bridegroom, he” (that is God, the

bridegroom of the church) “doth consecrate me with glory,” — “

gloriously set me apart for himself.” The word therefore is sacred; and though ˆ heKo be traduced to signify other persons, as we shall see afterwards, yet ˆ heKo [properly] is only used in a sacred sense.

8. The Arabic ˆ hk, “cahan,” is “to divine, to prognosticate, to be a soothsayer, to foretell;” and ˆ hak, “caahan,” is “a diviner, a prophet, an astrologer, a figure-caster.” This use of it came up after the priests had

generally taken themselves unto such arts, partly curious, partly diabolical, by the instigation of the false gods whom they ministered unto. Homer puts them together, as they came afterwards mostly to be the same, Iliad. A. 62: —

jAll j a]ge dh> tina ma>ntin ejrei>omen, h] iJerh~a ]H kai< ojneiropo>lon?—

“A prophet, or a priest, or an interpreter of dreams.”

Ma>gouv kai< ajstrono>mouv te kai<rqu>tav metepe>mpeto, Herod., lib. iv.; — “He sent for magicians, astronomers, and priests,” for qu>thv is a priest; for the priests first gave out oracles and divinations in the temples of their gods. From them proceeded a generation of impostors, who exceedingly infatuated the world with a pretense of foretelling things to come, of interpreting dreams, and doing things uncouth and strange, unto the amazement of the beholders. And as they all pretended to derive their skill and power from their gods, whose priests they were, so they invented, or had suggested unto them by Satan, various ways and means of divination, or of attaining the knowledge of particular future events. According unto those ways which in especial any of them attended unto were they severally denominate. Generally they were called µ ymik;j}, “wise men ;” as those of Egypt, <014108> Genesis 41:8, and of Babylon, <270212> Daniel 2:12, 13. Hence we render ma>goi, the followers of their arts, “wise men,” <400201> Matthew 2:1. Among the Egyptians they were divided into two sorts,µ yMifur]jæand µ ypiV]kæm], <020711> Exodus 7:11; the head of one sort in the days of Moses being probably Jannes, and of the other Jambres, <550308> 2 Timothy

3:8. We call them “magicians and sorcerers.” Among the Babylonians thereis mention of these, and two sorts more are added unto them, namely,µ ypiV;aæand µ yDic]Kæ, <270202> Daniel 2:2. Of the difference and distinction among these we shall treat afterwards. From this practice of the generality of priests did ˆ K; come to signify “to soothsay” or “divine.”

hæ

1. ˆ heKo is then a priest; and he who was first called so in the Scripture, probably in the world, was Melchizedek, <011418> Genesis 14:18. On what account he was so called shall be afterwards declared. Sometimes, though rarely, it is applied to express a priest of false gods; as of Dagon, <090505> 1 Samuel 5:5; of Egypt, <014145> Genesis 41:45, “Joseph married the daughter of Potipherah, ˆ ao ãheKo,” — “priest of On,” that is, of Heliopolis, the chief seat of the Egyptian religious worship. Nor is there any color why the word should here be rendered “prince,” as it is, abr, by the Targum, — the Latin is “sacerdos,” and the LXX. iJereu>v, — for the dignity of priests, especially of those who were eminent among them, was no less at that time in Egypt, and other parts also of the world, than was that of princes of the second sort; yea, we shall consider instances afterwards wherein the kingly and priestly orifices were conjoined in the same person, although none ever had the one by virtue of the other but upon special reason. It was therefore, as by Pharaoh intended, an honor to Joseph to be married unto the daughter of the priest of On; for the man, according unto their esteem, was wise, pious, and honorable, seeing the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time consisted principally in the knowledge of the mysteries of their religion, and from their excellency therein were they exalted and esteemed honorable. Nor can it be pleaded, in bar to this exposition, that Joseph would not marry the daughter of an idolatrous priest, for all the Egyptians were no less idolatrous than their priests, and he might as soon convert one of their daughters to the true God as one of any other; which no doubt he did, whereon she became a matriarch in Israel. In other places, where, byˆ heKo, an idolatrous priest is intended, the Targum renders it by armwk; “comara,” whence are chemarims. Yet the Syriac translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a priest and an high priest, even when applied unto Christ, ar;m;WK and arem;WK bræ

2. , though elsewhere in the New Testament he useth an;h}K;, “chahana,” constantly. The reason hereof I have declared elsewhere.
1. It is confessed that this name is sometimes used to signify secondary princes, those of a second rank or degree, but is never once applied unto a chief, supreme prince, or a king, though he that is so was sometimes, by virtue of some special warrant, cohen also. The Jews, therefore, after the

Targum, offer violence to the text, <19B004> Psalm 110:4, where they would have Melchizedek to be called a cohen because he was a prince. But it is said expressly he was a king, of which rank none is, on the account of his office, ever called cohen; but unto those of a second rank it is sometimes accommodated: <102026> 2 Samuel 20:26, “Ira the Jairite was dwid;l] ˆ heKo,” — “a chief ruler,” say we, “about David.” A priest he was not, nor could be; for, as Kimchi on the place observes, he is called the “cohen of David,” but a priest was not a priest unto one man, but unto all Israel. So David’s sons are said to be cohanim: <100818> 2 Samuel 8:18, Wyh; µ ynih}Ko dwid; yneb]W, — “And the sons of David were cohanim;” that is, “princes,” though the Vulgate renders it “sacerdotes.” So also <181219> Job 12:19, we translate it “princes.” And in those places the Targum useth abr, “rabba;” the LXX sometimes aujla>rchv, “a principal courtier,” and sometimes suneto>v, “a counsellor.”

It is, then, granted that princes were called µ ynih}Ko, but not properly, but by way of allusion, with respect unto their dignity; for the most ancient dignity was that of the priesthood. And the same name is therefore used metaphorically to express especial dignity: <021906> Exodus 19:6, µ ynih}Ko tk,l,m]mæ yliAWyh]ti; — “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,” speaking of the whole people. This Peter renders basi>leion iJera>teuma, <600209> 1 Peter 2:9, — “ A kingly” (or “royal”) “priesthood.” The name of the office is hN;huK], <024015> Exodus 40:15, ijera>teuma, “pontificatus, sacerdotium,” “the priesthood.” Allowing, therefore, this application of the word, we may inquire what is the first proper signification of it. I say, therefore, that ˆ heKo, “cohen,” is properly qu>thv, “a sacrificer;” nor is it otherwise to be understood or expounded, unless the abuse of the word be obvious, and a metaphorical sense necessary.

11. He who is first mentioned as vested with this office is Melchizedek: <011418> Genesis 14:18, ˆ wOyl][, lael] ˆ heko aWhw]; — “And he was a priest unto the most high God.” The Targumists make a great difference in rendering the word ˆ heKo. Where it intends a priest of God properly, they retain it, ˆ hk and anhk; where it is applied unto a prince or ruler, they render it by abr, “rabba;” and where an idolatrous priest, by armwk. But in this matter of Melchizedek they are peculiar. In this place they use çmçm, “meshamesh:” hal[ la µ dq çmçm awhw, — “And he was a minister before the high God.” And by this word they express the ministry of the

priests: <021922> Exodus 19:22, ˆ ybyrqd aynhk yyy µ dq açmçl, — The priests who draw nigh to minister before the Lord;” whereby it is evident that they understood him to be a sacred officer, or a priest unto God. But <19B004> Psalm 110:4, where the same word occurs again to the same purpose, they render it by abr, “a prince,” or great ruler: “Thou art a great ruler like Melchizedek:” which is a part of their open corruption of that psalm, out of a design to apply it unto David; for the author of that Targum lived after they knew full well how the prophecy in that psalm was in our books and by Christians applied unto the Messiah, and how the ceasing of their law and worship was from thence invincibly proved in this Epistle. This made them maliciously pervert the words in their paraphrase, although they durst not violate the sacred text itself. But the text is plain, “Melchizedek was cohen to the high God,” — “a priest,” or one that was called to the office of solemn sacrificing to God; for he that offereth not sacrifices to God is not a priest to him, for this is the principal duty of his office, from which the whole receives denomination. That he offered sacrifices, those of the church of Rome would prove from these words, <011418> Genesis 14:18, ˆ yiy;w; µ j,l, ayxiwOh; — “He brought forth bread and wine.” But neither the context nor the words will give them countenance herein; nor if they could prove what they intend would it serve their purpose. Coming forth to meet Abraham (as our apostle expounds this passage, Hebrews 7), he brought forth bread and wine, as a supply for the relief and refreshment of himself and his servants, supposing them weary of their travel. So dealt Barzillai the Gileadite with David and his men in the wilderness, <101727> 2 Samuel 17:27-29. They brought out necessary provision for them, for they said, “The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.” And Gideon punished them of Succoth and Penuel for not doing the like, <070805> Judges 8:5-8, 13-17. But the aim of these men is to reflect some countenance on their pretended sacrifice of the mass; which yet is not of bread and wine, for before the offering they suppose them to be quite changed into the substance of flesh and blood. The weakness of this pretense shall be elsewhere more fully declared. At present it may suffice that ayxiwOh is no sacred word, or is never used to express the offering of any thing unto God. Besides, if it were an offering he brought forth, it was a hj’n]mi, or “meat-offering,” with a Ës,ne, or “drink-offering,” being of bread and wine. Now, this was only an acknowledgment of God the Creator as such, and was not an immediate type of the sacrifice of Christ; which was represented by them alone which, being made by blood, included a propitiation in them. But that Melchizedek was by office a sacrificer appears from Abraham delivering up unto him lKomi rce[}mæ, <011420> Genesis 14:20, “the tenth of all;” that is, as our apostle interprets the place, tw~n ajkroqini>wn, “of the spoils” he had taken. rce[}mæis a sacred word, and denotes God’s portion according to the law. So also those who had only the light of nature, and it may be some little fame of what was done in the world of old, whilst God’s institutions were of force among men, did devote and sacrifice the tenth of the spoils they took in war. So Camillus framed his vow unto Apollo when he went to destroy the city of Veil: “Tuo ductu Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinctus, pergo ad delendam urbem Veios, tibique hinc decumam partem praedae voveo,” Liv., lib. v. cap. xxi.

The like instances occur in other authors. jAkroqi>nia is not used for the spoils themselves anywhere but in this place. In other authors, according to the derivation of the word, as it signifies the top or uppermost part of an heap, it is used only for that part or portion of spoils taken in war which was devoted and made sacred: Herod. lib. i. cap. lxxxvi., Ei]te dh< ajkroqi>nia tau~ta katagiei~n qew~n oJtew|dh>. And again, lib. viii. cap. cxxi., Prw~ta me>n nun toi~si qeoi~si ejxei~lon ajkroqi>nia?, — “They took out the dedicated spoils for the gods.” And the reason why our apostle useth the word for the whole spoils, whence a tenth was given to Melchizedek, is, because the whole spoil was sacred and devoted unto God, whence an honorary tenth was taken for Melchizedek, as the priests had afterwards out of the portion of the Levites; for all Levi was now to be tithed in Abraham. Among those spoils there is no question but there were many clean beasts meet for sacrifice; for in their herds of cattle consisted the principal parts of the riches of those days, and these were the principal spoils of war. See <043132> Numbers 31:32, 33. And because Saul knew that part of the spoils taken in lawful war was to be given for sacrifices unto God, he made that his pretense of saving the fat cattle of the Amalekites, contrary to the express command of God, <091515> 1 Samuel 15:15. Abraham therefore delivered these spoils unto Melchizedek, as the priest of the most high God, to offer in sacrifice for him. And it may be there was somewhat more in it than the mere pre-eminence of Melchizedek, which was the principal consideration hereof, and his being the first and only priest in office, by virtue of especial call from God, — namely, that Abraham himself, coming immediately from the slaughter of many kings and their numerous army, was not yet ready or prepared for this sacred service; for even among the heathens they would abstain from their sacred offices after the shedding of blood, until they were, one way or other, purified to their own satisfaction. So in the poet, Virg. Aeneid. 2:717: —

“Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu patriosque penates; Me, bello e tanto digressum et caede recenti, Attrectare nefas, donec me flumine vivo Abluero.”

12. The matter is yet made more evident by the solemn election of a priesthood of old among the people of God, or the church in the wilderness. Sacrificing from the foundation of the world had been hitherto left at liberty. Every one who was called to perform any part of solemn religious worship was allowed to discharge that duty also. But it pleased God, in the reducing of his church into an especial peculiar order, – to represent in and by it more conspicuously what he would afterwards really effect in Jesus Christ, – to erect among them a peculiar office of priesthood. And although this respected in general ta< pro<v to<n Qeo>n, all things that were to be done with God on the behalf of the people, yet the especial work and duty belonging unto it was sacrificing. The institution of this office we have Exodus 28, whereof afterwards. And herein an enclosure was made of sacrificing unto the office of the priests; that is, so soon as such an office there was by virtue of especial institution. And these two things belonged to them: —

(1.) That they were sacrificers; and,

(2.) That they only were so: which answers all that I intend to

evince from this discourse, namely, that a priest is a sacrificer.

Whereas, therefore, it is in prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be a priest, and he is said so to be, the principal meaning of it is, that he should be a sacrificer, one that had right and was called to offer sacrifice unto God. This was that for which he was principally and properly called a priest, and by his undertaking so to be, an enclosure of sacrificing is made unto himself alone.

This is the general notion of a priest amongst all men throughout the world; and a due consideration hereof is of itself sufficient to discharge all the vain imaginations of the Socinians about this office of Christ, whereof we shall treat afterwards.

EXERCITATION 26.

OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

1. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ — The eternal counsels of God; how to be inquired into. 2. No priest or sacrifices in the state of innocence. 3. Priesthood and sacrifices related. 4. The nature of the office of the priesthood, <1> Hebrews 5:1, explained. 5. In the state of innocence some [might act] for God towards men, none for other men towards God. 6. No sacrifices in that state — To sacrifice is properly to slay. 7. Killing essential to sacrifices. 8. No revelation concerning sacrifices before the fall. 9. Opinion of some, that the Son of God should have been incarnate though man had not sinned — Of the necessity of sacrifices in all religious worship. 10. Pretences of reasons for the incarnation of Christ, without respect to sin or grace. 11. The whole unwritten;

12. Contrary to what is written; 13. And destitute of countenance from spiritual reason. 14. Pleas of the Pelagians and ancient schoolmen for the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocence — Their first argument, from the glory of God and good of the universe, proposed and answered. 15. The second argument, from the capacity of the human nature for the grace of union in the state of innocence, answered. 16. [The third argument], the mystery of the incarnation revealed to Adam in the state of innocence — The meaning of these words, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” 17. The order of God’s decrees concerning his glory in the salvation of mankind considered — No order of them to be conceived that is consistent with the preordination of the incarnation without respect to sin and redemption. 18. The arguments of Osiander — The Son, how the image of the Father — The order of subsistence and operation in the Trinity — Christ, how the head of angels and men. 19. The image of God in man, wherein it consisted. 20. How Adam was made in the image of Christ, and Christ made in the image of Adam. 21. The incarnation, how occasioned by the fall — The Son of God the head of angels and men even had not sin entered into the world. 22. [In a state of innocence, men would not have died naturally.] 23. No sacrifices in the state of innocence — Bellarmine’s arguments for the necessity of a proper sacrifice in all religion. 24. The mass not proved a sacrifice thereby — The use and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in our religion. 25. An answer to Bellarmine’s arguments — His general assertion overthrown by his own instances. 26. The conclusion.

1. We have seen that Jesus Christ is a priest, that as such he was prophesied of under the old testament, and declared so to be in the new. The original of this office is in the next place to be inquired after. This, in the general, all will acknowledge to lie in the eternal counsels of God; for “known unto him are all his works from the beginning of the

world,” <441518> Acts 15:18.

But these counsels, absolutely considered, are hid in God, in the eternal treasures of his own wisdom and will. What we learn of them is by external revelation and effects:

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things

which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that

we may do all the words of this law,” <052929> Deuteronomy 29:29.

God frequently gives bounds to the curiosity of men, like the limits fixed to the people in the station at Sinai, that they should not gaze after his unrevealed glory, nor pry into the things which they have not seen. It was well said, that “scrutator majestatis absorbetur a gloria” Our work is, to inquire wherein, how, and whereby, God hath revealed his eternal counsels, to the end that we may know his mind, and fear him for our good. And so even the angels desire to bow down and to look into these things, <600112> 1 Peter 1:12 ; — not in a way of condescension, as into things in their nature beneath them; but in a way of humble diligence, as into things in their holy contrivance above them. Our present design, therefore, is to trace those discoveries which God hath made of his eternal counsels in this matter, and that through the several degrees of divine revelation whereby he advanced the knowledge of them, until he brought them to their complement in the external exhibition of his Son, clothed in human nature with the glory of this office, and discharging the duties thereof.

1. The counsels of God concerning us, with our relation unto him and his worship, are suited unto the state and condition wherein we are, for they also are effects of those counsels. Our first condition, under the law of creation, was a condition of innocency and natural righteousness. In reference unto this estate, God had not ordained an establishment in it of either priest or sacrifice; for as they would have been of no use therein, so there was nothing supposed in that condition which might be prefigured or represented by them. Wherefore God did not pre-ordain the priesthood of Christ with respect unto the obedience of man under the law of creation; nor did he appoint either priesthood or sacrifice, properly so called, in that state of things whilst it did continue; nor should any such have been, upon a supposition of its continuance. And this we must confirm against the opposition of some.

2. We have declared in our preceding discourse that a priest, properly so called, is a sacrificer. There is, therefore, an indissoluble relation between these two, — namely, priesthood and sacrifice, — and they do mutually assert or deny each other; and where the one is proper, the other is so also; and where the one is metaphorical, so is the other. Thus, under the old testament, the priests who were properly so by office had proper carnal sacrifices to offer; and under the new testament, believers being made priests unto God, that is, spiritually and metaphorically, such also are their sacrifices, spiritual and metaphorical. Wherefore arguments against either of these conclude equally against both. Where there are no priests, there are no sacrifices; and where there are no sacrifices, there are no priests. I intend only those who exercise the office of the priesthood for themselves and others. I shall therefore, first, manifest that there was no priesthood to be in the state of innocency; whence it will follow that therein there could be no sacrifice: and, secondly, that there was to be no sacrifice, properly so called; whence it will equally follow, that there was no priesthood therein. That which ensues on both is, that there was no counsel of God concerning either priesthood or sacrifice in that state or condition.

3. Pa~v ga<r ajrciereu<v ejx ajnqrw>pwn lamqano>menov uJpe<r ajnqrw>pwn kaqi>statai ta< pro<v to<n Qeo<n i[na prosfe>rh| dw~ra> te kai< qusi>av uJpe<r ajmartiw~n, saith our apostle, <1> Hebrews 5:1. What ishere affirmed of the high priest (lwOdN;hæ ˆ heKohæ

) is true in like manner concerning every priest; only, the high priest is here mentioned by way of eminence, because by him our Lord Christ, as unto this office and the discharge of it, was principally represented. Every priest, therefore, is one ejx ajnqrw>pwn lamqano>menov, — “ taken from amongst men.” He is “naturae humanae particeps,” — in common with other men partaker of human nature; and antecedently unto his assumption of his office, he is one of the same rank with other men, and he is taken or separated unto this office from among them. He is vested with his office by the authority, and according to the will of God. This office, therefore, is not a thing which is common unto all, nor can it take place in any state or condition wherein the whole performance of divine service is equally incumbent on all individually; for none can be “taken from among others” to perform that which those others are every one obliged personally to attend unto. But every priest, properly so called, kaqi>statai uJpe<r ajnqrw>pwn, — “is ordained and appointed to act for other men.” He is set over a work in the behalf of those other men from among whom he is taken; and this is, that he may take care of and perform ta< pro<v to<n Qeo<n, or do the things that for men are to be done with God; µ yhiloa’h; lWm, — that is, to pacify, to make atonement and reconciliation, <021819> Exodus 18:19. And this he was todo by offering dw~ra> te kai< qusi>av, various sorts of “gifts and sacrifices,” according unto God’s appointment. Now, all slain sacrifices, as we shall manifest afterwards, were for sin. This office, therefore, could have no place in the state of innocency; for it will not hear an accommodation, of any part of this description of one vested therewithal.

5. I do acknowledge, that in the state of uncorrupted nature there should have been some ujpe<r tou~ Qeou~, ta< pro<v to<n a]nqrwpon, — to deal with others for and in the name of God; for some would have been warranted and designed to instruct others in the knowledge of God and his will. This the state and condition of mankind did require; for both the first relation of man and wife, and that which was to ensue thereon of parents and children, include subordination and dependence. “The head of the woman is the man,” <461103> 1 Corinthians 11:3, — that is, “the husband,” <490523> Ephesians 5:23; and the duty of the man it had been to instruct the woman in the things of God. For a pure nescience of many things that might be known to the glory of God and their own advantage was not inconsistent with that estate, and their knowledge was capable of objective enlargements; and the design of God was, gradually to instruct them in the things that might orderly carry them on unto the end for which they were created. Herein would he have made use of the man for the instruction of the woman, as the order of nature required: for man was originally “the head of the woman;” only, upon the curse, natural dependence was turned into troublesome subjection, <010316> Genesis 3:16. But the entrance of sin, as it contained in it the seeds of all disorder, so it plainly began in the destruction of this order; for the woman, undertaking to learn the mind of God from herself and the serpent, was deceived, and first in the transgression: <540213> 1 Timothy 2:13, 14,

“Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,

but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

From Adam being first formed, and the woman out of him and for him, she should have learned her dependence on him for instruction by divine institution. But going to learn the mind of God of the serpent, she was deceived. She might have learned more than yet she knew, but this she should have done of him who was her head by the law of creation. The case is the same as to the other relation, that would have been between parents and children. Yea, in this the dependence was far greater and more absolute; for although the woman was made out of the man, which argues subordination and dependence, yet she was made by the immediate power of God, man contributing no more to her being than the dust did to his. This gave them in general an equality. But children are so of their parents as to be wholly from them and by them. This makes their dependence and subjection absolute and universal. And whereas parents were in all things to seek their good, — which was one of the prime dictates of the law of nature, — they were, in the name and stead of God, to rule, govern, and instruct them, and that in the knowledge of God and their duty towards him. They were uJpe<r Qeou~, “for God,” or in his stead unto them, to instruct them in their duty, suitably to the law of their creation and the end thereof. But every one thus instructed was in his own name and person to attend unto the things of God, or what was to be performed on the behalf of men; for in reference unto God, there would have been no common root or principle for men to stand upon. Whilst we were all in the loins of Adam we stood all in him, and we also fell all in him ejf j w=| pa>ntev h[marton, <450512> Romans 5:12. But so soon as any one had been born into this world, and so should have had a personal subsistence of his own, he was to stand by himself, and to be no more, as to his covenant interest, concerned in the obedience of his progenitors; for the covenant with mankind would have been distinct with each individual, as it was with angels. There might have been, there would have been, order, subordination, and subjection, among men, in respect of things from God unto them, — so probably there is among the angels, although the investigation thereof be neither our duty nor in our power, — but, as was said, every one, according to the tenor of the covenant then in force, was in his own person to discharge all duties of worship towards God. Neither could any one be taken out from the residue of men to discharge the works of religion towards God for them, in the way of an office, but it would be to the prejudice of their right and the hinderance of their duty. It follows, therefore, that the office of a priest was impossible in that condition, — that is, of one who should be ordained uJpe<r ajnqrw>pwn ta< pro<v to<n Qeo>n, — and had any such office been possible, there would not have been in it any prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, as will afterwards appear.

6. The same is the state of things with reference unto sacrifices. There is, as was said before, a relation between them and the priesthood. Hence is that saying in Bereshith Rabba: ˆ k jbzmk wynhk; — “As is the altar for sacrifice, so are the priests that belong unto it.” And by sacrifices in this inquiry, we understand those that are properly so: for that which is proper in every kind is first; nor is there any place for that which is improper or metaphorical, unless something proper from whence the denomination is taken have preceded, for in allusion thereunto doth the metaphor consist. Now, the first possible instance in this matter being in the state about which we inquire, there must be proper sacrifices therein, or none at all; for nothing went before with respect whereunto any thing might be so called, as now our spiritual worship and service are, with allusion unto them under the old testament.

And concerning those sacrifices, we may consider their nature and their end. A sacrifice is jbæz,; that is, qusi>a, “victima, sacrificium mactatum,” — “a slain or killed offering;” yea, the first proper signification of jbæz; is “mactavit, jugulavit, decollavit, occidit,” — “to kill, to slay by the effusion of blood,” and the like. Neither is this signification cast upon it from its affinity unto jbæf;, “to kill or slay” (the change of f and z being frequent, as in the Chaldee almost perpetual), but it is its own native signification: <013154> Genesis 31:54, jbæz]Yiwæ

z, bqo[}yæ jBæ. Say we, “Jacob offered sacrifices.” Junius, “Mactavit animalia,” — “He slew beasts;” which we allow in the margin, “He killed beasts.” Targum, atskn bq[y sknw skn is “to kill or slay,” and is constantly so used; and atskn is no more but “mactatio,” “a slaughter;” but because all sacrifices were offered by slaying, it is applied to signify a sacrifice also. So <233406> Isaiah 34:6. It is true, there was a covenant made between Jacob and Laban, and covenants were sometimes confirmed by sacrifices, with a feast of the covenanters ensuing thereon; but it is not likely that Jacob and Laban would agree in the same sacrifice, who scarcely owned the same God. It is, therefore, only the provision and entertainment that Jacob made for Laban and his company, for which he slew the cattle, that is intended; otherwise the sacrifice would have been mentioned distinctly from the feast. So are these things expressed <021812> Exodus 18:12. And so jbæz, is rendered by us “to kill or slay” absolutely, <092824> 1 Samuel 28:24; <051215> Deuteronomy 12:15, 16; <111921> 1 Kings 19:21, 1:9; and so also ought it to be translated <042240> Numbers 22:40, where it is “offered” in our books. jbæz], the substantive, is also “mactatio, jugulatio, occisio:” so <233406> Isaiah 34:6; <360107> Zephaniah 1:7; which James expresseth by sfagh>, <590505> James 5:5. And µ yjib;z] are absolutely no more than sfa>gia, as from the slaughter of the sacrifices the altar is called

jæ

Bez]mi. Qu>w, also, and qusi>a, do no otherwise signify but “to sacrifice,” or sacrifice by mactation or killing.

1. It is therefore evident that there neither is nor can be any sacrifice, properly so called, but what is made by killing or slaying of the thing sacrificed; and the offerings of inanimate things under the law, as of flour or wine, or the fruits of the earth, were improperly so called, in allusion unto or by virtue of their conjunction with them that were properly so. They might be twOlwO[, “offerings” or “ascensions,” but µ yjib;z], “sacrifices,” they were not. And the act of sacrificing doth principally consist in the mactation or slaying of the sacrifices, as shall afterwards be manifested. And whereas the oblation, as it is used to express the general nature of a sacrifice, is commonly apprehended to consist in the actings of the sacrificer after the killing of the sacrifice or victim, it is so far otherwise that it principally consists in brining of it to be slain, and in the slaying itself, all that follows belonging unto the religious manner of testifying faith and obedience thereby. This also discovers the proper and peculiar end of sacrifices, firstly and properly so called, especially such as might prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, unto which our present discourse is confined. All such sacrifices must respect sin, and an atonement to be made for it. There never was, nor ever can be, any other end of the effusion of blood in the service of God. This the nature of the action (“quod in ejus caput sit”) and the whole series of divine institutions in this matter do manifest; for to what end should a man take another creature into his power and possession, which also he might use to his advantage, and, slaying it, offer it up unto God, if not to confess a guilt of his own, or somewhat for which he deserved to die, and to represent a commutation of the punishment due unto him, by the substitution of another in his room and place, according to the will of God? And this casteth all such sacrifices as might be any way prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ out of the verge of paradise, or state of innocency; for as therein there should have been no bloody mactation of our fellow-creatures, so a supposition of sin therein implies an express contradiction.

1. Again, sacrifices require faith in the offerer of them: <581104> Hebrews 11:4, “By faith Abel offered a sacrifice.” And faith in the subject respects its proper object, which is divine revelation. Men can believe no more with divine faith than is revealed, and all our actings in faith must answer the

2. 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 religious worship as sacrifices. This might be manifested by a just consideration of the principles of that revelation which God made of himself unto man under the first covenant, and what was necessary 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 impossible that there should be any sacrifices properly so called, and prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ, in the state of innocency.
2. 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 manifestation 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 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 is come 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; Bonaventure in Sentent., lib. iii. dist. i. ar. 2, q. 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 opposed 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 have 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 Cassianus 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 praestandum humano generi redemptionem, sed ad praebenda bonorum actuum exempla venisse; videlicet, ut disciplinam ejus sequentes, homines, dum per eandem virtutis viam incederent, 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 their peculiar opinion; for they endeavor 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.

1. 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 considered. 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, <430103> John 1:3; <580102> Hebrews 1:2; <510116> Colossians 1:16,17. 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 incarnate without respect unto redemption and a recovery from sin and misery, the whole of it is

2. a]grafon, or unwritten, and therefore uncertain and curious; yea, ajnti>grafon, or contrary to what is written, and therefore false; and a]logon, or destitute of any solid spiritual reason for the confirmation of it.
1. First, It is unwritten, — nowhere revealed, nowhere mentioned in the Scripture; nor can an instance be given of the faith of any one of the saints of God, either under the old testament or the new, in this matter. The first promise, and consequently first revelation, of the incarnation of the Son of God, was after the entrance of sin, and with respect unto the recovery of the sinner, unto the glory of God. Hereby are all other promises, declarations, and revelations concerning it, as to their end, to be regulated; for that which is the first in any kind, as to an end aimed at, is the rule of all that follows in the same kind. And therefore that which men ground themselves upon in this opinion is indeed neither argument nor testimony, but conjecture and curiosity. They frame to themselves a notional state of things, which they suppose beautiful and comely, (as who are not enamored of the fruits of their own imaginations?) and then assert that it was meet and according unto divine wisdom that God should so order things unto his own glory as they have fancied! Thus they suppose, that, without respect unto sin or grace, God would take unto himself the glory of uniting our nature unto him. Why so? Because they find how greatly and gloriously he is exalted in his so doing. But is this so absolutely from the thing itself, or is it with respect unto the causes, ends, effects, and circumstances of it, as they are stated since the entrance of sin, and revealed in the Scripture? Setting aside the consideration of sin, grace, and redemption, with what attends them, a man may say, in a better compliance with the harmony and testimony of Scripture, that the assumption of human nature into union with the divine, in the person of the Son of God, is no way suited unto the exaltation of divine glory, but rather to beget false notions and apprehensions in men of the nature of the Godhead, and to disturb them in their worship thereof; for the assumption of human nature absolutely is expressed as a great condescension, as it was indeed, <501405> Philippians 2:5-8, and that which served for a season to obscure the glory of the Deity in him that assumed it, <431705> John 17:5. But the glory of it lies in that which caused it, and that which ensued thereon; for in them lay the highest effects and manifestations of divine love, goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness, <450324> Romans 3:24-26. And this is plainly revealed in the gospel, if any thing be so. I fear, therefore, that this curious

2. speculation, that is thus destitute of any scriptural testimony, is but a pretense of being wise above what is written, and a prying into things which men have not seen, nor are they revealed unto them.
1. Secondly, This opinion is contradictory to the Scripture, and that in places innumerable. Nothing is more fully and perspicuously revealed in the Scripture than are the causes and ends of the incarnation of Christ; for whereas it is the great theater of the glory of God, the foundation of all that obedience which we yield unto him, and of all our expectation of blessedness with him, and being a thing in itself deep and mysterious, it was necessary that it should be so revealed and declared. It were endless to call over all the testimonies which might be produced to this purpose; some few only shall be instanced in.

First, therefore, On the part of the Father, the sending of the Son to be incarnate is constantly ascribed unto his love to mankind, that they might be saved from sin and misery, with a supposition of the ultimate end, or his own glory thereby: <430316> John 3:16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” <450325> Romans 3:25, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.” <450508> Romans 5:8, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ, died for us.” <3> Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” <620409> 1 John 4:9; <4> Galatians 4:4, 5.

Secondly, On the part of the Son himself, the same causes, the same ends of his taking flesh, are constantly assigned: <421910> Luke 19:10, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” <540115> 1 Timothy 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” <580214> Hebrews 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” <480220> Galatians 2:20; <431837> John 18:37, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth,” — namely, of the promises of God made unto the fathers concerning his coming; <451508> Romans 15:8. See <501706> Philippians 2:6-11. And all this is said in pursuit and explication of the first promise concerning him, the sum whereof was, that he should be manifested in the flesh to “destroy the works of the devil,” as it is expounded <620308> 1 John 3:8.

This the whole Scripture constantly and uniformly giveth testimony unto, this is the design and scope of it, the main of what it intends to instruct us in; the contrary whereunto, like the fancying of other worlds, or living wights in the moon or stars, dissolves the whole harmony of it, and frustrates its principal design, and therefore is more carefully to be avoided than what riseth up in contradiction unto some few testimonies of it. I say, that to ascribe unto God a will or purpose of sending his Son to be incarnate, without respect unto the redemption and salvation of sinners, is to contradict and enervate the whole design of the revelation of God in the Scripture; as also, it riseth up in direct opposition unto particular testimonies without number. Origen observed this, Hom. xxiv. in Numer.:

“Si non fuisset peccatum, non necesse fuerat Filium Dei agnum fieri; sod mansisset hoc quod in principio erat, Deus Verbum. Verum quoniam introiit peccatum in hunc mundum, peccati autem necessitas propitiationem requirit, propitiatio vero non sit nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit provideri hostiam pro peccato;” —

“If sin had not been, there would have been no necessity that the Son of God should be made a lamb; but he had remained what he was in the beginning, God the Word. But seeing that sin entered into the world, and stood in need of a propitiation, which could not be but by a sacrifice, it was necessary that a sacrifice for sin should be provided.”

So Austin, Serm. 8 de Verbis Apostoli, tom. x., “Quare venit in mundum peccatores salvos facere. Alia causa non fuit quare veniret in mundum.”

13. Thirdly, This opinion is destitute of spiritual reason, yea, is contrary unto it. The design of God to glorify himself in the creation and the law or covenant of it, and his design of the same end in a way of grace, are distinct; yea, they are so distinct as, with reference unto the same persons and times, to be inconsistent. This our apostle manifests in the instance of justification and salvation by works and grace:

“If it be by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work,” <451106> Romans 11:6.

It is impossible that the same man should be justified by works and grace too. Wherefore God, in infinite wisdom, brought the first design, and all the effects of it, into a subordination unto the later; and so he decreed to do from eternity. There being, by the entrance of sin, an aberration in the whole creation from that proper end whereunto it was suited at first, it pleased God to reduce the whole into a subserviency unto the design of his wisdom and holiness in a way of grace; for his purpose was to reconcile and gather all things into a new head in his Son, Jesus Christ, <490110> Ephesians 1:10; <580103> Hebrews 1:3, 2:7, 8. Now, according to this opinion, the incarnation of the Son of God belonged originally unto the law of creation, and the design of the glory of God therein. And if this were so, it must, with the whole old creation and all that belonged thereunto, be brought into a subordination and subserviency unto the succedaneous design of the wisdom of God to glorify himself in a way of grace. But this is not so, seeing itself is the fundamental and principal part of that design. “Known,” indeed, “unto God are all his works from the beginning.” Therefore, this great projection of the incarnation of his Son lying in the counsel of his will from eternity, he did, in wisdom infinite and holy, order all the concernments of the creation so as they might be disposed into an orderly subjection unto his Son incarnate. So that although I deny that any thing was then instituted as a type to represent him, — because his coming into the world in our flesh belonged not unto that estate, — yet I grant things to have been so ordered as that, in the retrieval of all into a new frame by Jesus Christ, there were many things in the works of God in the old creation that were natural types, or things meet to represent much of this unto us. So Christ himself is called the “second Adam,” and compared to the “tree of life,” whereof we have discoursed in our exposition on the first chapter.

14. Let us, therefore, now consider the arguments or reasons in particular which they plead who maintain this assertion. The principal of them were invented and made use of by some of the ancient schoolmen; and others have since given some improvement unto their conceptions, and added some of their own. Those of the first sort are collected by Thomas, 3 p. q. l, a. 3, as traduced from the Pelagians. I shall examine them as by him proposed, omitting his answers, which I judge insufficient in many instances.

His first argument, the substance whereof I have lately heard pleaded with some vehemency, is as follows: — “ It belonged unto omnipotent power and infinite wisdom to make all his works perfect, and to manifest himself by an infinite effect. But no mere creature can be said to be such infinite effect, because its essence is finite and limited. But in the work of the incarnation of the Son of God alone, an infinite effect of divine power seems to be manifested, as thereby things infinitely distant are conjoined, God being made man. And herein the universality of things seems to receive its perfection, inasmuch as the last creature, or man, is immediately conjoined unto the First Principle, or God.”

Answer. This argument hath little more in it than curiosity and sophistry; for, —

(1.) That God made all his works “good,” that is, perfect in their kind, before the incarnation, we have his own testimony. He saw and pronounced of the whole that it was daom} bwOf, “valde bonum,” — every way good and complete. It was so in itself, without the addition of that work which is fancied necessary unto its perfection.

(2.) It is merely supposed that it was necessary that divine omnipotency should be expressed unto the utmost of its perfection. It was enough that it was manifested and declared in the creation of all things out of nothing.

(3.) It is not possible that any effect in itself infinite should be produced by the power of God: for then would there be two infinites, — the producing and the produced; and consequently two Gods, — the making God and the made: for that which is in itself absolutely infinite is God, and what is produced is not infinite. Wherefore the work of the incarnation was not of itself an infinite effect, although it was an effect of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; and so also was the work of the first creation. And although they are all in themselves finite and limited, yet are they the effects of, and do abundantly declare, the infinite power and wisdom whence they were educed, <450119> Romans 1:19, 20.

(4.) The perfection of the universe, or universality of beings, is to be regulated by their state, condition, and end. And this they had in their first creation, without any respect unto the incarnation of the Son of God; for the perfection of all things consisted in their relation unto God, according to the law and order of their creation, and their mutual regard unto one another, with respect unto the utmost end, or the manifestation of his glory. And also, their perfection consisted in their subserviency unto the bringing of that creature to the enjoyment of God in blessedness for ever which was capable of it. And herein consisted the conjunction of the last creature unto the First Principle, when, by the documents and helps of them that were made before, he was brought unto the enjoyment of God; for, —

(5.) That the conjunction of the last creature unto the First Principle, by way of personal union, was necessary unto the good of the universe, is a fancy that every one may embrace and every one reject at pleasure. But it may be justly conceived that it was more suitable unto order that the conjunction mentioned should have been between God and the first creature, namely, the angels; and reasons would have been pleaded for that order had it so come to pass. But the Son of God took not on him their nature, because he designed not to deliver them from sin, <580216> Hebrews 2:16, 17.

15. Secondly, It is further pleaded, “That human nature is not become more capacious of grace by sin than it was before; but now, after the entrance of sin, it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Wherefore, if man had not sinned human nature had been capable of this grace, neither would God have withheld any good from human nature whereof it was capable: therefore if man had not sinned God had been incarnate.”

Ans. (1.) Place angelical nature in the argument, as to that part of it which pleads that it must have all the grace which it is capable of, instead of human nature, and the event will show what force there is in this ratiocination; for angelical nature was capable of the grace of union, and God would not, it is said, withhold any thing from it whereof it was capable. But why, then, is it otherwise come to pass?

(2.) It must be granted (though, indeed, this argument is not much concerned therein one way or other) that human nature is both capable of more grace, and actually made partaker of more, after the fall, than it was capable of, or did receive before; for it is capable of mercy, pardon, reconciliation with God, sanctification by the Holy Ghost, all which are graces, or gracious effects of the love and goodness of God; and these things in the state of innocency man was not capable of. Besides, there is no difference in this matter; for the individual nature actually assumed into union was and was considered as pure as in its first original and creation.

(3.) The ground of this reason lies in a pretense, that whatever any creature was capable of, not in, by, or from itself, but by the power of God, that God was obliged to do in it and for it. And this is plainly to say that God did not communicate of his goodness and of his power unto the creatures according to the counsel of his will, but, producing them by the unavoidable destiny of some eternal state, he acted naturally and necessarily, “ad ultimum virium,” in their production. But this is contrary to the nature and being of God, with all the properties thereof. Wherefore, the creation is capable, in every state, of what God pleaseth, and no more. Its capacity is to be regulated by the will of God; and no more belonged unto its capacity in the state of nature than God had assigned unto it by the law of creation.

(4.) It is a presumptuous imagination, to talk of the grace of union being due unto our nature in any condition. Why is it not so unto the nature of angels? or did our nature originally excel theirs? Besides, the Scripture everywhere expressly assigns it as an effect of free love, grace, and bounty, <430316> John 3:16; <620409> 1 John 4:9, 10.

(5.) That there should be an advance made both of the glory of God and the good of the creature itself by the entrance of sin, is an effect of infinite wisdom and grace. Nor did God permit the entrance of sin but with a design to bring about a glory greater and more excellent than the antecedent order of things was capable of. The state of grace exceeded the state of nature. In brief, God permitted that greatest evil, the fall of man, to make way for the introduction of the greatest good, in our restoration by the incarnation and mediation of his Son.

16. Thirdly, It is also pleaded, “That the mystery of the incarnation was revealed unto Adam in the state of innocency; for upon the bringing of Eve unto him, he said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.’ But ‘this,’ saith the apostle, ‘is a great mystery;’ but he speaks it ‘concerning Christ and the church,’ <490532> Ephesians 5:32. But man could not foresee or foreknow his own fall; no more than the angels could theirs; it follows, therefore, that he considered the incarnation as it should have been had the state of innocency continued.”

Ans. (1.) It seems to be supposed in this argument that there was indeed a revelation made unto Adam, <010223> Genesis 2:23, of the incarnation of Christ; so that nothing remains to be proved but that he did not foreknow his fall, whence it would ensue that the pretended revelation belonged unto the state of innocency. But, indeed, there is no intimation of any such revelation; for, — (2.) I have manifested elsewhere how God, in his infinite wisdom, ordered the things of the first creation so as they might be laid in a subserviency, in a way of representation, unto the new creation, or the renovation of all things by Jesus Christ; that is, he so made them as that they might be natural types of what he would do afterwards. This doth not prove that they were designed to make any revelation of Christ and his grace, or prefigure them, but only were meet to be brought into an useful subordination unto them, so that from them instructive allusions might be taken. Thus was it in the first marriage in the law of creation. It had no other nature, use, nor end, but to be the bond of individual society of two persons, male and female, for the procreation and education of children, with all mutual assistances unto human life and conversation. And the making of woman out of the man, “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” was intended only for the laying that society, whose intimacy was to be unparalleled, in a singular foundation. But both these things were so ordered, in the wisdom of God, as that they might represent another union, in a state that God would bring in afterwards, namely, of Christ and his church. What Adam spake concerning the natural condition and relation of himself and Eve, that our apostle speaks concerning the spiritual and supernatural condition and relation of Christ and the church, because of some resemblance between them. Aquinas himself determines this whole matter, with an assertion which would have been to his own advantage to have attended unto upon other occasions. Saith he,

“Ea quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt supra omne debitum

creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra

Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde cum

in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi

hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus

ordinatum esse a Deo in commodum contra peccatum, quod

peccato non existente incarnatio non fuisset.”

17. There is yet another argument mentioned by Aquinas, and much improved by the modem Scotists, insisted on also by some divines of our own, which deserves a somewhat fuller consideration; and this is taken from the predestination of the man Christ Jesus. This the schoolmen consider on that of our apostle, <450104> Romans 1:4, “Concerning Jesus Christ, oJrisqe>ntov UiJou~ Qeou~ ejn duna>mei:” which the Vulgate renders, “Qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute;” — “Predestinate the Son of God with power,” as our Rhemists. But oJrisqe>ntov there is no more than ajpodedeicqe>ntov, “manifested, declared,” as it is well rendered by ours. Nor can expositors fix any tolerable sense to their “predestinate” in this place. But the thing itself is true. The Lord Christ was predestinated or preordained before the world was. We were “redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, proegnwsme>nou pro< katabolh~v ko>smou,” <600120> 1 Peter 1:20, — “foreordained” (“predestinated”) “before the foundation of the world.” Now, it is pleaded that “this predestination of Christ unto the grace of union and glory was the first of God’s purposes and decrees in order of nature, and antecedent unto the predestination of the elect, at least as it should comprise in it a purpose of deliverance from the fall. For God first designed to glorify himself in the assumption of human nature, before he decreed to save the elect by that nature so assumed; for we are said to be ‘chosen it him,’ that is, as our head, <490104> Ephesians 1:4, whence it necessarily ensues that he was chosen before us, and so without respect unto us. So in all things was he to have the preeminence, <510119> Colossians 1:19; and thence it is that we are ‘predestinated to be conformed to his image,’ <9> Romans 8:29. This preordination, therefore, of the Lord Christ, which was unto grace, and glory, was antecedent unto the permission of the fall of man; so that he should have been incarnate had that never fallen out.”

These things are by some at large deduced and explained, but this is the sum of what is pleaded in the pursuit of this argument, which shall be as briefly examined as the nature of the matter itself will permit.

The order of the divine eternal decrees, as to their priority one unto another in order of nature and reason, so as not the decrees themselves, which are all absolutely free and irrespective, but the things decreed, should be one for another, hath been at large discoursed of and discussed by many. But there are yet not a few who suppose those very discourses on all hands to have more of nicety and curious subtilty than of solid truth unto edification. And because this is a matter wherein the Scripture is utterly silent, though one opinion may be more agreeable to sound reason than another, yet none is built upon such certain foundations as to become a matter of faith, or the principle of any thing that is so. That which explains this order most conveniently and suitably unto divine wisdom, will, and sovereignty, and which best answers the common apprehensions of rational natures and the rules of their actings, is to be preferred before any opinion that includes what is opposite unto or alien from any of these things, which that order hath respect unto. From any such order in the decrees of God no advantage can be drawn unto the opinion under consideration; but if men may be allowed to suppose what they will, they may easily infer thereon what they please. Let us, therefore, take a view of the several series of divine decrees, which have been confirmed with a considerable suffrage of learned men, setting aside particular conjectures, which never received entertainment beyond the minds of their authors. And these may be reduced unto three: –

All agree that the glory of God is the utmost and supreme end that he intendeth in all his decrees. Although they are free acts of his will and wisdom, yet, on the supposition of them, it is absolutely necessary, from the perfection of his being, that he himself or his glory be their utmost end. His absolute all-sufficiency will not allow that he can in them have any other end. Accordingly, in pursuit of them he makes all for himself, <201604> Proverbs 16:4; and they serve to declare and make known the perfection of his nature, <191901> Psalm 19:1; <450119> Romans 1:19, 20. And it is his glory, in the way of justice and mercy, which he ultimately intends in his decrees concerning the salvation of man by Jesus Christ. Whereas many things are ordered by him in a subserviency hereunto, the decrees of God concerning them are conceived by some in that order which answers the order of their accomplishment; — as, first, they say, God decreed to make the world, and man therein upright in his image; secondly, to permit the fall and the consequents thereof, man being to that end left unto the liberty of his will; thirdly, he designed to send his Son to be incarnate, for the work of their redemption; fourthly, he decreed to give eternal life unto as many as should believe on him and obey him; and, lastly, he determined to bestow effectual grace on some persons in particular, to work faith and obedience in them infallibly, and thereby to bring them unto glory, unto the praise of his grace and mercy. According unto this order of God’s decrees, it is plain that in the order of nature the predestination of Christ is antecedent unto the election of other particular or individual persons, but withal that it is consequential unto the decree concerning the permission of the fall of Adam; and, accordingly, his incarnation doth suppose it; which is inconsistent with the opinion under examination.

Others take a contrary course, and, by a misapplication of a common rule, that what is first in intention must be last in execution, they suppose the order of God’s decrees, being his intentions or purposes, to be best conceived in a direct retrogradation unto the order of their execution. Supposing, therefore, the decree of glorifying himself in the way before mentioned, they judge God’s first decree in order of nature to be for the eternal salvation and glory of some certain persons, who are actually at last brought thereunto; for this being the last thing executed must be first intended. Secondly, In subserviency hereunto, he purposeth to give them grace, and faith, and obedience thereby, as the way to bring them unto the possession of glory. Thirdly, Unto these purposes of God they make the decrees concerning the creation and permission of the fall of man, with the incarnation and mediation of Christ, to be subservient, some in one method, some in another. But that all their conceptions must have an inconsistency with the predestination of Christ unto his incarnation antecedent unto a respect unto sin and grace, is plain and evident.

But whereas both these ways are exposed unto insuperable objections and difficulties, some have fixed on another method for the right conception of the order of God’s eternal decrees in these things, which hath a consistency in itself, and may be fairly brought off from all opposition, — which is the utmost that with sobriety can be aimed at in these things, — namely, that nothing be ascribed unto God in the least unsuited unto the infinite perfections of his nature, nor any thing proposed unto the minds of men inconsistent with the general principles and rules of reason. And those lay down the general rule before mentioned, namely, that what is first in intention is last in execution. But, secondly, they say withal, that this rule concerns only such things as in their own nature, and in the will of him that designs them, have the relation of end and means unto one another; for it hath no place among such things as are not capable of that relation. And, moreover, it is required that this end be ultimate and supreme, and not subordinate, which hath also the nature of the means. The meaning of it, therefore, is no more but that in all rational purposes there are two things considered, — first, the end aimed at, and then the means of its effecting or accomplishment; and that in order of nature, the end, which is the last thing effected, is the first designed, and then the means for it; which things are true, and obvious unto the understanding of all men. According unto this rule, they ascribe unto God but two decrees that have any order of priority between them. The first is concerning his end, which is first intended and last executed; the other concerning all those means which, being in the second place intended for the production of the end, are first accomplished and wrought. The first of these, which is the supreme end of all the dispensations of God towards the things that outwardly are of him, is his own glory, or the declaration of himself in a way of justice and mercy, mixed with infinite wisdom and goodness, as he is the first Being, sovereign Lord and Ruler over all. The second decree, of things subordinate and subservient hereunto, consisteth in an intention concerning all intermediate acts of divine wisdom, power, and goodness, which tend unto the production of this ultimate end. Such are the creation, the permission of the fall, the pre-ordination of Christ, and others in him, unto grace and glory, by the way and means thereunto appointed. Now, although these things are evidently subordinate and subservient unto one another, and although there may be apprehended singular decrees concerning them, yet because none of them do lie in the order of the means and ultimate end, there is no priority of one decree before another to be allowed therein; only a decree is supposed of disposing them in their execution, or the things executed, into that order, both in nature and time, as may constitute them all one suitable means of attaining the supreme end intended. Now, it is evident that, according unto this order, there cannot be a priority in the pre-ordination of Christ unto the decree of the permission of the fall and entrance of sin.

It is true, indeed, Christ was pre-ordained, or [rather] the Son of God was so, to be incarnate before the foundation of the world, <600120> 1 Peter 1:20. But how? Even as he was “manifested in these last times.” As he was preordained to be incarnate, so he was to be so of the blessed Virgin: and this neither was nor could be but with respect unto the redemption of mankind; for he took flesh of her in answer to the first promise concerning the seed of the woman, which respected our recovery from sin. As he was born or made of her, he was the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world. Besides, he was not ordained unto the grace of union before and without the consideration of glory and exaltation. But this included a supposition of his suffering for sin; for he was first to “suffer,” and then to “enter into his glory,” <422426> Luke 24:26. Accordingly, he ordered his own prayer, <431704> John 17:4, 5,

“I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which

thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with

thine own self.”

To fancy a pre-ordination of the Son of God unto incarnation not of the blessed Virgin after the entrance of sin, not as the Lamb of God, not as one to be exalted after suffering, is that which neither Scripture nor reason will admit of. It is said, indeed, that we are “predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ,” <9> Romans 8:29, which seems to imply an antecedency in his predestination unto ours; but “the image of Christ” there intended includes his suffering, holiness, and exaltation unto glory on his obedience, all which have respect unto sin and redemption. And, moreover, the predestination here intended is subordinate unto our election unto glory, being our designation unto the assured and infallible means thereof, <490104> Ephesians 1:4, 5. It is true, it was the design of God that he “in all things should have the pre-eminence,” <510118> Colossians 1:18; which, as it denotes excellency, worth, use, dignity, supremacy, nearness unto God for the receiving, and unto us for the communicating, of all good, so no respect therein is had unto such a pre-ordination as should imply his incarnation without an intention of glorifying God in the redemption of sinners thereby, which alone we have undertaken to disprove.

18. The arguments of Osiander in this case have been discussed by others, Calvin. Institut. lib. ii. cap. xii. sect. 4, etc.; Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23; Tarnovius, in cap. iii. in Evang. S. Johan. I shall only touch so far upon them as is necessary unto our present design, and that in such instances wherein they have no coincidence with what hath been already discussed. And some few things may be premised, which will take away the suppositions on which all his reasonings were founded; as, –

(1.) The Son was the essential and eternal image of the Father antecedent unto all consideration of his incarnation. He is in his divine person “the image of the invisible God,” <510115> Colossians 1:15; “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” <580103> Hebrews 1:3: for having his essence and subsistence from the Father by eternal generation, or the communication of the whole divine nature and all its infinite perfections, he is the perfect and essential representation of him.

(2.) The order of operation in the blessed Trinity, as unto outward works, answereth unto and followeth the order of their subsistence. Hence the Son is considered as the next and immediate operator of them. Thus, as he is said to have made all things, <430103> John 1:3, <510116> Colossians 1:16, so the Father is said to make all things by him, <490309> Ephesians 3:9; not as an inferior, subordinate, instrumental cause, but as acting his wisdom and power in him, to whom they were communicated by eternal generation. Hence, the immediate relation of all things so made is unto him; and by and in his person is God even the Father immediately represented unto them, as he is his image, and as the brightness of his glory shines forth in him.

Hereon follows his rejoicing in the creation, and his delights in the sons of men, <200830> Proverbs 8:30, 31, because of their immediate relation unto him.

(3.) Therefore should he have been the immediate head and ruler of angels and men, had they all persisted in their original integrity and innocency, <510116> Colossians 1:16; for the representation of God unto them, as the cause and end of their being, the object and end of their worship and service, should have been in and by his person, as the image of the Father, and by and through him they should have received all the communications of God unto them. He should have been their immediate head, lord, and king, or the divine nature in his person; for this the order of subsistence in the blessed Trinity, and the order of operation thereon depending, did require.

These things being premised, it will not be difficult to remove out of our way the reasons of Osiander for the incarnation of Christ without a supposition of sin and grace; which we would not engage in, after they have been so long ago put into oblivion, but that they are by some revived, and the consideration of them will give occasion unto the clearing of some truths not of small importance.

19. First, His principal plea was taken from the “image of God” wherein man was created: “For this,” he saith, “was that human nature, consisting of soul and body, in the outward shape, lineaments, and proportion, which it hath in our persons, which the Son of God was to take upon him. God having ordained that his Son should take human nature, he created Adam in a conformity unto the idea or image thereof.”

Ans. This, doubtless, is a better course for the unfolding of our creation in the image of God than that of the old Anthropomorphites, who, in the exposition of this expression, made God in the image of man; but yet is it not therefore according unto the truth. The image of God in man was in general those excellencies of his nature wherein he excelled all other creatures here below. In especial, it was that uprightness and rectitude of his soul and all its faculties, as one common principle of moral operations, whereby he was enabled to live unto God as his chiefest good and utmost end <210729> Ecclesiastes 7:29. This by our apostle is termed “righteousness and true holiness,” where he treats of the renovation of it in us by Jesus Christ, <490424> Ephesians 4:24; whereunto he adds that which is the principle of them both, in the renovation of our minds, <510310> Colossians 3:10. Nor doth this image of God consist, as some fancy, in moral duties, in distinction from and opposition unto any other effect of the grace of Christ in the hearts of men, which acts itself in any duty according to the will of God. “To pray, to hear the word, to celebrate religious worship,” they say, “is no part of the image of God; because God doth none of these things, and an image must always correspond unto the thing it represents.” But our likeness unto God doth not consist in doing what God doth, neither is his image in us in any thing more express than in our universal dependence on him and resignation of ourselves unto him, which is a thing the divine nature is incapable of; and when we are commanded to be holy as he is holy, it is not a specificative similitude, but analogical only, that is intended. Wherefore, as the image of God consists in no outward actions of any kind whatever, so the internal grace that is acted in prayer, hearing, and other acts of sacred worship, according to the will of God, doth no less belong unto the image of God than any other grace, or duty, or virtue whatever. In like manner faith doth so also, and that not only as it is an intellectual perfection, but with respect unto all its operations and effects, as the Lord Christ himself and the promises of the gospel are in their several considerations the objects of it: for as in our first creation the image of God consisted in the concreated rectitude of our nature, whereby we were disposed and enabled to live unto God according to the law of our creation, — wherein there was a great representation of His righteousness, or universal, absolute rectitude of his nature, by whom we were made, – so whatever is communicated unto us by the grace of Jesus Christ, whereby our nature is repaired, disposed, and enabled to live unto God, with all acts and duties suitable thereunto, according to the present law of our obedience, belongs to the restoration of the image of God in us; but yet with special respect unto that spiritual light, understanding, or knowledge, which is the directive principle of the whole, for

“the new man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that

created him,” <510310> Colossians 3:10.

This, therefore, being the image of God, it is evident that in the creation of man therein there was no respect unto the human nature of Christ, which, as the Son of God, he afterwards assumed. Only, it is granted that we are both formed and re-formed immediately in his image; for as he was and is, in his divine person, the express image of the Father, the divine qualifications wherein the image of God originally consisted in us were immediately wrought in us by him, as those wherein he would represent his own perfection. And in the restoration of this image unto us, as God implanted in him incarnate all fullness of that grace wherein it doth consist, who therein absolutely represents the invisible God unto us, so we are transformed immediately into his likeness and image, and unto that of God by him, <470318> 2 Corinthians 3:18.

20. It is further pleaded, “That if the Son of God should not have been incarnate if Adam had not sinned, then Adam was not made in the image of Christ, but Christ was made in the image of Adam.”

Ans. How Adam was made in the image of the Son of God hath been declared, — namely, as to the principles of his nature, and their rectitude with respect unto the condition wherein and the end for which he was made; in which there was a representation of his righteousness and holiness. And in some sense Christ may be said to be made in the image of Adam, inasmuch as he was “made flesh,” or partaker of the same nature with him:

“Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also

himself likewise took part of the same,” <580214> Hebrews 2:14.

“He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the

likeness of men,” <502007> Philippians 2:7.

And this he was of God designed unto, even to take on himself that nature wherein Adam was created, and wherein he sinned. He was to be made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, <580415> Hebrews 4:15. Whence, in his genealogy after the flesh, he is reduced by Luke unto the first Adam, <420338> Luke 3:38; and he is called not the first, or the exemplar of the creation of men, but the second Adam, <461547> 1 Corinthians 15:47, being to recover and restore what was lost by the first. Wherefore, in respect of the substance and essence of human nature, Christ was made in the image of Adam; but in respect of the endowments and holy perfections of that nature, he was made in the image of God.

21. Moreover, it is objected, “That the incarnation of Christ was a thing decreed for itself, and as to its futurition depended only on the immutable counsel of God; but this supposition, that it had respect unto the fall of man and his recovery, makes it to depend on an external accident, which, as to the nature of the thing itself, might not have been.”

Ans. The resolution hereof depends much on what hath been before discoursed concerning the order of the divine decrees, which need not to be here repeated. Only, we may remember that the foresight of the fall, and the decree of the permission of it, cannot with any reason be supposed to be consequential to the decree concerning the incarnation of the Son of God: for the reparation of man is everywhere in the Scripture declared to be the end of Christ’s taking flesh; for

“when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,

made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were

under the law,” <4> Galatians 4:4, 5.

Neither can his incarnation be properly said either to be “for itself” on the one side, or by “accident” on the other; for it was decreed and foreordained for the glory of God. And the way whereby God intended to glorify himself therein was in our redemption, which, in his infinite love to mankind, was the moving cause thereof, <430316> John 3:16. Of the same importance is it, “That if the Son of God had not been incarnate, neither angels nor men could have had their proper head and king;” for, as we have premised, the Son of God should have been the immediate head of the whole creation, ruling every thing in its subordination unto God, suitably unto its own nature, state, and condition. For as he was “the image of the invisible God,” so he was “the first-born of every creature,” <510115> Colossians 1:15; that is, the Lord, ruler, and inheritor of them, as we have at large elsewhere declared.

22. It is pleaded in the last place, “That had men continued in their integrity, there should have been a season when they were to be changed and translated into heaven. Now, this being to be done by the Son of God, it was necessary that he should be incarnate for that purpose.” And so far is this consideration urged by Osiander. But this is carried on by the Socinians, and improved on another supposition of their own. Vid. Smal. Refut. Thes. Franzii Disput. xii. p. 429.

Man, they tell us, was created absolutely mortal, and should have actually died, although he had never sinned. That he might be raised again from the dead, God would have sent a Messiah, or one that should have been the means, example, and instrumental cause of our resurrection.

Ans. All persons of sobriety will acknowledge that there is nothing in these reasonings but groundless curiosities and vain speculations, countenanced with false suppositions; for as God alone knows what would have been the eternal condition of Adam had he persisted in the covenant of his nature, so whatever change was to be wrought concerning him as the reward of his obedience, God could have effected it by his infinite wisdom and power, without any such instrumental cause as these men imagine. “Secret things belong unto the LORD our God ;” nor are we to be “wise above what is written.” The Socinians’ superfetation, that man should have died naturally, though not penally, is a figment of their own, that hath been elsewhere discussed, and is very unmeet to be laid as the foundation of new assertions that cannot otherwise be proved.

From what hath been discoursed it appears that there was no revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocency; neither did it belong unto that state, but was designed in order unto his priesthood, which could therein have no place nor use.

23. Our next inquiry is concerning sacrifices, and whether they were to have had either place or use in the state of innocency. This being determined, way will be made for the fixing of the original of the priesthood of Christ, whereof we are in the investigation, upon its right foundation. And this inquiry is made necessary unto us by some of the Roman church, particularly Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia, They have not, indeed, fixed any special controversy in this inquiry, whether there should have been any sacrifices in the state of innocency; but, in an attempt to serve a principal concern of their own, they assert and contend for that which determines the necessity of sacrifices in that state and condition of things between God and men; for they plead in general, “That there neither is, nor ever was in the world, nor can be, any religion without a true and real sacrifice.” Their design herein is only to hedge in the necessity of their sacrifice of the mass; for on this supposition it must be esteemed to be of the very essence of Christian religion, which some, on the contrary, judge to be overthrown thereby. Now, it is certain that there was and should have been religion in the state of innocency, continued if that state had continued; yea, therein all religion and religious worship were founded, being inlaid in our nature, and requisite unto our condition in this world, with respect unto the end for which we were made. Herein, therefore, on this supposition, sacrifices were necessary, which Bellarmine includes in that “syllogism,” as he calls it, whereby he attempts the proof of the necessity of his missatical sacrifice in the church of Christ, De Missa, lib. i. cap. 20:

“Tanta,” saith he, “conjunctio est inter legem seu religionem et

sacrificium, externum ac proprie dictum, ut omnino necesse est aut legem et religionem vere et proprie in Christi ecclesia non reperiri, aut sacrificium quoque externum et proprie dictum in Christi ecclesia reperiri. Nullum autem est si missam tollas. Est igitur missa sacrificium externum proprie dictum;”

— “There is such a conjunction between the law or religion and a sacrifice, external and properly so called, that it is altogether necessary either that there is no law or religion truly and properly to be found in the church of Christ, or there is a sacrifice, external and properly so called, to be found therein; but take away the mass, and there is none: wherefore the mass is an external sacrifice, properly so called.”

1. The invalidity of this argument unto his especial purpose may easily be laid open; for setting aside all consideration of his mass, Christian religion hath not only in