Page images


their life.

together new and unknown in the schools of divines. Certainly, our modesty forbids us to difpute against that right of God, whereby he punishes the sins of parents in their children, and poiterity, which he himself, such is his clemency, usually confines to the third and fourth generation of those that hate him. Nor is it lawful for us to deny, that the severity of God's anger may at times burn to a farther degree, if the fins are above measure atrocious; and posterity shall

, for a long series, not only equal, but even exceed their ancestors in wickedness. God was pleased to give us an example of this in the wicked Jews, according to that threatening prophesy of Christ, Mat. xxiii. 35. Luke xi. 50. « So that froin this initance his wrath might be seen, burning from the beginning of the world against hypocrites, enemies of righteousnets, and murderers ;" as the learned person very well speaks elsewhere. But, that “all the fins of all men are punished in some one perfon or people,” I do not remember, that I ever read or heard till now : neither that " the wicked bear the sins of the faithful.” I know that, when God, in pathetic language, Ifa. xliii. 3, 4. commends his love towards Israel, he declares, that he gave the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sabeans for their ransom, and other men and people for

But, as our Calvin judiciously observes, the prophet borrowed that way of speaking from the common method of men, as if he had said, “ the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Sabeans, have been substituted for thee, and, as it were, by way of exchange, forced to undergo that deitruction, which was hanging over thee: for that I might save thee, I have destroyed them; and turned against them the power of the enemy, that was ready to fall upon thee.” Or, to return to the learned person's own words : « the meaning of that passage is; such is my eftcem for thee, that I am to bring to nought the greatest and most flourishing empires of the world, in order to relieve and comfort thee.” This certainly, is quite different from bearing the fins of the faithful, as was typically done by the goat.

LXIX. It is with joy we learn from Paul, that the time will come, when all Israel shall be saved, after the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. But we think, this cannot be inferred from these words, “ the scape-goat shall be presented alive before Jehovah, to make an atonement with it. The learned persons themselves teach us that you sometimes signifies an inftrument, as Gen. xxvii. 40. Deut. xiii. 3. And why not here? That the meaning should be, to make an atonement with or by it. We shall prefently shew how this is done by the live-goat.

LXX. Others therefore, and, if I can form any judgment, to better purpose, affirm, that this scape-goat, no less than that

which was killed, was a type of Christ. But these again run into different sentiments. Some maintain, that here are reprefented the two natures of Christ, the human, to be exposed to misery and torment; the other the divine, as being impassible, to remain free and to live for ever ; which Cornelius a Lapide relates, was the opinion of Theodoret, Isychius and Cyril. Others say, that the twofold state of Christ, before and after his resurrection, was here set forth. Thus the flain goat was the type of Christ, lifted upon the cross, but that sent away alive, of the same Christ, raised from the dead, and living for evermore. Of this opinion, after Augustin and Procopius, were Bochart and other celebrated divines. Yet two things feem very much to oppose this sentiment: ift, That the sins of Ifrael were laid upon the live-goat: but Christ rose from the dead, and entered into glory without fin, Heb. ix. 28. 2dly, That the same goat, as loaded with fin, was accounted unclean, so that the person who conveyed it into the wilderness, stood in need of cleansing, ver. 26. But no uncleanness can so much as be conceived to be in Christ after his resurrection.

LXXI. Others therefore, to whom I readily yield, imagine that a twofold relation of Christ the mediator is fignified; the one to God the judge, to whom satisfaction was to be made by the merit of his death; the other, to the devil his enemy, with whom he was to encounter by the efficacy of his life. With respect to the former, the goat to be sain, fell to God: in the latter, respect, the live-goat fell to Azazel. Let us add, that, in the slain goat, a true expiation of sin was represented, which is performed by shedding of blood and undergoing punishment: but in the other, the effect of this expiation; namely, the removing and taking away of fin, by the bearing it away so far as never to come into the fight of God against us. And this seems to be the reason of the order, why, after Naying the former goat, fins vere laid on the other, to be carried a great way off. Because there could be no taking away of fin without fredding of blood. Both indeed was done in the ordinary facrifices : but, because the latter was not so evident in the other facrifices, God was pleased to set it forth by a peculiar symbol in this solemn festival, for the greater consolation of his people. And thus the riches of the divine goodness and wisdom manifestly appear, when he laid before the eyes of his people, by different types, all the relations of Christ the Redeemer, which could not be distinctly exhibited in one single piece or picture.

LXXII. But let us more particularly illustrate the analogy. ist, The sins of Israel were laid on this goat that he might bear them. Christ truly bears, and by bearing takes away the Gins



of the whole world. And as Aaron laid both his hands on the head of the goat, so the hand of God lay very heavy and grievous on our surety. 2dly, This goat was appointed by lot for Azazel: not that this brute creature, which was consecrated to God, might be offered to the evil spirit, but expofed to be tormented by the devil, who very much resides in folitary places, Mat. xii. 43. Now the first promise shews, that Christ also, by the divine will, was to be given up to the Serpent who deceived Eve, Gen. iii. 15. “Thou shalt bruise his heel.” And Christ himself says, John xiv. 30, 31. “ the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me, but that the world may know, that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” That is, “ the devil indeed has no right “ in me, who am, and as I am, perfectly holy, nor can he ever « prevail against me: yet he is come out to combat with me,

to vex and even to slay me, because I have interposed in the

room of those who deserve death. But I go cheerfully to “ meet him; to the end, my obedience and love to my Father,

may appear to all the world.” 3dly, The goat was to be sent to a wilderness, and a land not inhabited: and such was the whole world, such, above all, was Judea, when Chrift came to suffer there. Scarce any harvest of faith, truth, and piety, was to be found there ; nothing but unfruitfulness, every where the thistle and prickly thorn atofe. And why may we not apply to this, what Matthew relates concerning Christ, when he was carried by the Spirit into the wilderness, there to be tempted by the devil ? Mat. iv. 1. For the wilderness, into which the goat was driven, could not less typify the wilderness in which Christ was tempted, than the wood on which the ferpent was raised, typified the wood on which Christ was lifted up. 4thly, The hand of a fit man, by which the goat was fent away (which, by a constant tradition of the Jews, might be done as well by a stranger as by an Israelite) seems to denote the power of those, who rose up against Chrift, namely, the

Gentiles and people of Israel, Acts iv. 27. and above all, Pilate, who · had caused Christ to be carried without the gate, loaded with

the cross, the symbol of a curse, when he was to encounter with the devil for the last time.

LXIII. I acknowledge I have learned these things, partly from Turretin *, partly from Cocceius himself; the former explains this opinion in a large discourse, and with cogency and success defends the argument deduced from it, for the fatisfaction of Christ against the Socinians, de Verit. fatisfact. Christi, P- 3. $ 22, 23. But the words of the latter in Comment, ad Heb. c. 9.$ 25, seq. as far at least as they are to our purpose, very well deserve to be inserted here. He says, “it is evident « from Ezek. xx. 357 That Christ was to come to Israel, when “ Ifrael was, as it were, in the wilderness, but that was, when « Judea was a Roman province, and had a Roman governor : “ for then it was a part of the wilderness of the people. And it is “ plain enough, that by the dragon, Rev. xii. is represented the " Roman people. He made himself ready to devour Chrift, " as soon as he was born. Moreover, the first promise declares, Gen. iii


* Turretin concludes $ 5. with these words. But, as I formerly said, it seems to be more simple, that the two goats signify nothing, but the perfect expiation, which Christ madé, who not only bore our fins in his death, but took them away by bis resurrecion; not only satisfied by the offering of himself, but demonstrated

. 17. That Christ was to be given up into the hands of the devil, who deceived Eve, under the appearance of a fer

pent. The Jews ascribe this to Sammael. As therefore the

Naying of the one goat represents the death of Christ, and “ the sheding of his blood : so the sending away of the other goat into a place uncultivated and dejárt, denotes, the delivering of

Christ into the hands of the devil, who has the power of death; in order to vex and disquiet him; and that by the hands of sin“ ners, and of such men, to whom the land was subject, like “ the rest of the wilderness of the people, and a part thereof. “ That this was done by the appointment and will of God,

Christ himself declares, John xiv. 30, 31. As if he should say, " the prince of this world, who has nothing in me, is come to exercise his cruelty upon me; which will happen, to the end,

my obedience may appear to the world. We have therefore “ a figure of a twofold delivering up of Christ. First, Of that “ by which he delivered up himself as priest. Secondly, Of “ that, by which he was given up into the hands of sinners, or “ the Gentiles.” Thus far Cocceius. To the like purpose, the very learned Momma Oeconom. Temp. t. 1. lib. 2. c. 11.' § 36. seq. Where, after explaining the same opinion with neatness and elegance, and proving it from Scripture, he then subjoins: we might rest contented with these things, and proceed to others. Let therefore none be offended, that being satisfied with these things, which exhibit a doctrine found and certain, I pass over other things, in which I find neither that foundness, nor that certainty.

LXXIV. the perfection and truth of his fatisfaction by his discharge, whereby we are assured, that our fins, being translated from us and laid upon him, are carried away, so that there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, Rom. viii. 1. and that of Paul is fulfilled ; that he was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification, Rom. iv. 25,

LXXIV. Very lately were published the Varia Sacra of the very famous John Vander Waeyen, in which are two differtations concerning the goat Azazel; the former of which is principally levelled at me. But I would neither have my reader, nor the illustrious author ignorant, how much I have profited by the perusal of that differtation. By it I was really brought under a kind of necessity, to consider more accurately the whole of this subject. Which I have also endeavoured to do with a mind so free from, and divested of all prejudices, as if I had never written any thing on the point before. Nor do I conceal, that from thence I had an opportunity to explain some things more clearly, others also more distinctly, and to set a keener edge on my arguments, than I had done in the former editions of this book. On that account therefore, if he will accept of it, I return him

my thanks. But then he must suffer me to say, that I have not found reasons cogent enough in his dissertation to render his opinion more probable, or mine less so. While he opposes my sentiment, and seems to charge it with many inconveniencies, he opposes what Dr Cocceius himself has dexterously explained and confirmed by Scripture testimonies, and as far as I know, never condemned or disapproved ; though he superadded another opinion. But I could never yet think it probable, that one and the fame ceremony should fignify things so very remote from one another. As for my particular, I leave the entire decision of this controversy with the equitable reader; who, if he is not wiser than us both, may profit by our writings. But as to the manner in which, the illustrious person manages the dispute, I imagine, I have very weighty grounds of complaint. Whoever happens to enter the list's with him, contend indeed on unequal terms. While he thinks, he may say what he will against others, he gives no quarter to any expression of his opponent, if it has but the least appearance of 'harshness in it; and assuming to himself, what is the prerogative of God alone, canvafles not only the heart and inmoft principles of the thoughts, but also boldly pronounces what fentence upon them he thinks proper. Indeed, I should appear ridiculous, was I seriously to ward off from myself the grudge conceived against Cocceius, as the origin and the cause of this diffention. Every page in my book shews my esteem for that celebrated person. “And though I cannot affent to him in every particular with an implicit faith, yet I never once dreamed of charging him with heresy: much less in this controversy, where the dispute is not so much about a doctrinal point, as about the mystical signification of some Mosaic institutions, without any detriment to our common faith. In which kind of subjects, if.

« PreviousContinue »