tion was completed; of which completion this was the fruit, that on that very day, the sins of all the elect were blotted out. And this is the mind of God in Zechariah. But what Paul so often speaks of the one offering, by which we are perfected, is to be understood in the same sense'; namely, since the sufferings of Christ, when on the cross, were the most grievous, and the complement of the whole, therefore the scriptures, commonly ascribe the expiation of our sins to the cross of Christ; because without that his foregoing sufferings had not been sufficient, as the payment of the utmost farthing completes the satisfaction, which is immediately followed by tearing the hand-writing, and giving a discharge.

XXXIV. To the second we reply, that here are many things asserted which we can by no means yield to. 1st. It is not true, that Christ was not a priest from the beginning of his life. For from the beginning of his life he was the Christ, that is, the Lord's anointed, no less to the sacerdotal than to his other offices. And since, when he lay in the manger, he was saluted king by the wise men, and when twelve years old, he shewed himself a prophet amidst the doctors; who will, after all this, presume to deprive him of the honour of his priesthood? and as it belonged to the priests to stand in the house of the Lord, Psal. cxxxiv. 1. was there not some display of his sacerdotal office in that apology to his parents, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business," Luke ii. 49. Nay, even before his incarnation, he exhibited some prelude of his sacerdotal function by his intercession for the church, Zech, i. 12, 13. We own indeed that Christ was publicly inaugurated in the 30th year of his age to his mediatorial office; but we can no more in-, fer from that, that Christ was not a priest, than that he was not Mediator before that time.

XXXV. I cannot but here subjoin the very solid reasoning of the celebrated Cloppenburg, from his Disputat. de vita Christi privata, § 15, 16. It could not be, but that in the daily prac tice of piety, and the obedience due to God, which he performed in the days of his flesh, Christ, who knew his unction from a child, (as appears from Luke ii. 49.) should offer prayers and supplications for the salvation of the church, whose King and Saviour he was born; compare Luke ii. 11. with, Heb. v. 7. And there is no reason why we may not extend the words of the apostle to all the days of his flesh, and all the sufferings he endured from his infancy, because by these he learned obedience; and so it was altogether the constant apprenticeship or novitiate of the mediatorial office of Christ, who walked from a child with God; wherein he from day to day fulfilled, by a persevering

obedience, the work which the Father had given him for the redemption of the church, which was to be fully completed by crowning his whole obedience with the offering up of himself a sacrifice, when he should be publicly called thereto," John xvii. 4. Acts ii. 23.

XXXVI. 2dly. Neither is it true, that Christ was not a sacrifice from the beginning of his life. For though his offering was completed on the cross, and by his death, yet he was even before that "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," John i. 29. The iniquities of us all were laid upon him; and it was for no other cause that he took upon him the form of a servant, and the likeness of sinful flesh, and though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor; and in fine, was exposed from his very infancy, to griefs, sorrows, and persecutions. All these calamities proceeded from this, that as both priest and sacrifice he took our sins upon himself, in order to their being at last fully abolished by his death.

XXXVII.3dly. The proof of this paradoxical assertion, taken from the types of the Old Testament, is in many respects defective. For, 1. There is no solid foundation for that hypothe sis, that all the circumstances of the types ought, in the same manner to be found in the antitype. For, then it would follow, that Christ must have been slain at a year old, according to the type of the paschal lamb. 2. It is also a rash assertion, that none could act as a priest before his 30th year. There is no such command in sacred writings. The Levites, indeed, were by the annal law, not admitted before their 25th year, Num. viii. 24. nor before their 30th year, to the full exercise of their function, Num. iv. 3. "But indeed I find no where among the Rabbins," says Selden, de succession. ad Pontificat. Ebræor. lib. ii. c. iv. "that the years of the Levites as Levites, indicated the legal age of the priests. And I very much wonder great men should admit of this, even while they sharply criticise upon others." It is the constant tradition of the Hebrews, that a priest is fit for his office at his 13th year, after his years of puberty, though he is not bound to take his turn with the rest before his 20th year. See Outram. de sacrific. lib. i. c. v. sect. 3. Josephus relates of Aristobulus, " that when a young man, and out of his 17th year, he by the law ascended the altar to officiate." It is astonishing the very learned person did not attend to these things, which, from his skill in the Hebrew ritual, he could not be ignorant of. 3. If this argument is to be urged,

* The author seems to refer to the law which debarred candidates from an office till such an age. Cic. de Legg. iii. 3.

1

it would thence follow, that Christ could have been a sacrifice after the 7th day from his birth, and immediately upon his 30th year be a priest, which is contrary to what is supposed in the sentiment we here oppose.

XXXVIII. To the third we reply: 1st. That the question is not, Whether Christ did all his life long so endure the wrath of God, as in the mean time to be favoured with no consolation or joy of the comforting Spirit? none will affirm this. But the question is, Whether all those sufferings, which Christ at any time endured, and all that form of a servant which he assumed, belong to the perfection of his satisfaction? a thing that cannot be overthrown by some shining intervals of joy now and then. 2dly. To be the be loved Son of God, and at the same time to suffer the wrath. of God, are not such contrary things, as that they cannot stand together. For as Son, as the holy One, while obeying the Father in all things, he was always the beloved; and indeed most of all when obedient even to the death of the cross; for that was so pleasing to the Father, that on account of it, he raised him to the highest pitch of exaltation, Phil. ii. 9. though as charged with our sins, he felt the wrath of God, burning,. not against himself, but against our sins, which he took upon himself. Who can doubt that Christ, even hanging on the cross, was in the highest love and favour of God, so far as he was Son, though at the same time he was made a curse for our sins? 3dly. It has never been proved, that it was a thing improper and inconsistent, for Christ to have some mitigation granted him, while he satisfied for our sins," by means of some rays of consolation at intervals shining in upon him, by which he might be animated resolutely to acquit himself in the conflict. Nor is it credible, that he had always the sensation of divine wrath, or that it was always equally intense, even on the very cross itself; or that he was as much pressed down by his agonies, when he made a promise of paradise to the thief, and spoke so affectionately with his mother and John, as when he complained he was forsaken of God. See that kind address of God the Father to Christ, when" despised by every one, and abhorred by the nation, and a servant of rulers,” Isa. xlix. 7.

XXXIX. What is argued from the creed, scarce deserves any answer; for when Christ is said to have suffered under Pontius Pilate, it was with no such intention as to distinguish the satisfactory sufferings of Christ from those which are not: a fiction I imagine, that none ever thought of: but simply to specify the

time in which Christ completed his sufferings, and the person by whose authority he was condemned to the cross. Nor will the maintainer of this paradox affirm, that all the sufferings, which Christ endured under Pilate, or by his authority, were satisfactory, for if the satisfaction must be restricted to the three *hours of darkness, then both the scourging and those indignities which Christ suffered in the pretorium, and his condemnation, nay his very crucifixion and death, must be excluded.

XL. It is certain a violence is done the catechism, which refers the impétration of our salvation to the one offering of Christ, with no other design, than what Paul does, whose meaning I have already explained. The words of question 37. appear to be perverted and misinterpreted. 1st. Because it is 'an answer to this question: "What believest thou when thou sayest, he suffered " But that expression he suffered, does not signify the bare susception of guilt, but the enduring of sorrows. 2dly. If to endure the wrath of God does not there signify to "feel it, but only to take its guilt upon himself, or be exposed to it, it would follow, that even at the close of his life he did not feel the wrath of God. For in the same sense the catechism affirms that very thing of the whole of Christ's life, and of the close thereof. 3dly. Ursinus is a more faithful interpreter of the catechism, when he writes, "under the appellation of suffering, are understood all the infirmities, miseries, griefs, racking tortures of soul and body, to which on our account Christ was obnoxious, from his nativity to his last breath," &c.. 4thly. It is in vain to seek for any pretence to this forced sense from question 84. and John iii. 36. for it is not an obnoxiousness to the wrath of God that alone hangs over unbelievers and hypocrites; but they are really in a state of wrath and curse, and that curse which they are now under, is the beginning and a part of those pains which they shall suffer for ever.

XLI. The more special arguments or exceptions, either regard the death of Christ, or his agonies in the garden, or are taken from the beginning and end of the solar eclipse; which I shall set in such a light as at the same time to refute them.

XLII. If any shall say, that the scripture, when' ascribing our redemption to the death of Christ, means by that death those very intense pains of eternal death, which Christ endured both in soul and body together, when he complained that he was forsaken of God; I answer, that indeed they are not, on any account to be secluded from the compass or extent of the word death, but the death of Christ is not to be confined to them, so as to exclude the death of the body, or the separation of soul and body. For Peter speaks expressly of his being put to death in

the flesh, 1 Pet. iii. 18. and the whole scripture ascribes our, ransom to that death, from which Christ arose by his resurrection, and in fine, Paul makes the sacrifice which Christ offered to consist in a death which is like to that which is appointed for all men once to undergo, Heb. xi. 27. and which, verse 26. is a sacrifice, and was shadowed forth by the slaying of the legal sacrifices. And we have already mentioned several places which cannot without manifest violence be so explained, as to exclude the death of the body from being included in his death.

XLIII. If you object that Christ had before said, It is finished, I answer, it ought to be understood of his finishing all those things which he was to suffer and do in life, so that nothing remained but to conclude the whole by a pious death. Just as Paul said, 2 Tim. iv. 7. " I have finished my course." And Christ himself, John xvii. 4. "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." Whence one would absurdly infer, that there remained for Christ on saying this, nothing further to be done or suffered; when he was still to be made perfect by his last sufferings. The meaning is evident; namely, that Christ in discharging his office, had perfectly performed all he was thus far to perform.

XLIV. If you insist upon it, that his death was calm and gentle, without the appearance of any pains of eternal death, having already undergone these, I answer, it was a gentle death indeed, in so far as the faith of Christ, now, victorious over all temptations, was well apprized, that he had surmounted the greatest pains, and was secure about his resurrection and the promised reward; but yet he died a cursed death, inflicted by the wrath of God against sin, and the curse of it was typically figured by his hanging on the tree, which still continued in, and after death. For while he hung on the tree, so far he was doubtless under the curse, according to Gal. iii. 13. by which is signified, that his punishment ought to be taken as holding forth guilt, and the curse of God.

XLV. But say you believers are still to die; and therefore Christ did not satisfy for them by his death. I answer, the Catechumens have been taught to answer this objection from question 42. of the Heidelberg catechism. By the death of Christ, death hath ceased to be what it was before, the punishment inflicted by an offended judge, and the entrance into the second death, and is become the extermination

Q. But since Christ died for us, why must we also die? A. Our death is not a satisfaction for sin, but the abolishing of sin, and our passage into everlast ing life.