The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The Vindication of Exod. 20.10. Lev. 1.4. & 4.29. Lev. 8.14. & 16.20, 21.
Dialogu. EVery owner muſt impoſe both his hands upon the head of the ſin-offering, this impoſition of hands did (as the aſſertors of the doctrine of imputation ſay) typifie the Lords laying our ſin upon Chriſt by imputation: and ſo godly expoſitors do underſtand it. See Exo. 20.10. Lev. 1.4. and 4.29. and 8.14. and 16.20, 21.
Anſw. Aaron and his ſons impoſed their hands on the head of the ſin-offering, Exod. 29.10. the owner thereof laid on his hands, Lev. 1.4. and 4.29. the Elders of the Congregation lay on their hands, Lev. 4.15. the Prieſts, Lev. 4.4. & 8.14. Aaron himſelf layeth both his hands upon the live goat, and confeſſeth over him the iniquity of the children of Iſrael, Lev. 16.21. which confeſſion of ſin though it be only expreſſed in the caſe of the Scape-goat, yet it is judged to have accompanied impoſition of hands upon the ſin-offering; From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56. as alſo becauſe there is like reaſon in all.Calvin in Lev. 1.1. Junius in Lev. 1. Ainſworth Lev. 1.4. Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. & 4.10. & 16.23. Annot. in Le. 16.21. Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata noſtra imponere Chriſto, h.e. certò ſta…uere quòd illa ei impofita ſint â Deo ut ea expiaret.
Orthodox and judicious Expoſitors ſeem rather to underſtand that the rite of impoſition of hands did typifie the profeſſion of their faith in Chriſt as the true ſacrifice to be ſlain for ſin imputed to him: and that the preſent ſacrifice (or beaſt ſlain) was a type thereof: then that it did typifie the Lords laying our ſin upon Chriſt by imputation: there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of ſin unto Chriſt, and an act teſtifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of ſin unto Chriſt. You ſhould have produced your Expoſitors, for they do not generally ſo ſpeak: the man (ſaith M. Ainſworth) that brought the offering was to lay or impoſe his hands, thereby teſtifying his faith in Chriſt the true ſacrifice to be ſlain for ſin. But it being granted that Expoſitors did ſo underſtand it, how doth the Dialogue diſprove their expoſition?
A private mans impoſition cannot repreſent Gods act, the impoſition of the hands of the Elders cannot, for the Elders actions repreſent the Churches astions: neither can the impoſition of the Prieſts and High-Prieſts, they were types of Chriſts Prieſtly nature, and not of the father.
Anſw. If theſe Reaſons were good for what they are alledged, yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expoſitors (at leaſt generally) upon the place. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing, but that the act of a private perſon was capable (if God ſo pleaſed) to become a type of Gods act, which is alſo true concerning the Elders, Prieſts, and High-Prieſts. The act of an Iſraelite (though a private perſon) in letting his Hebrew ſervant go free for nothing, either at the ſeventh year, Exo. 21.2. or at the year of Jubilee, Lev. 25.40. figured or repreſented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jeſus Chriſt.
Cyrus (as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people) was Perſia's repreſentative; yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward, he typified our free ſalvation, which is the act of God the Father: the putting of Gods name upon the children of Iſrael by Aaron and his ſons, Num. 6.27. was (ſaith Ainſworth) a ſign that the name and bleſſing of God was impoſed upon them: It's improper to ſay the Prieſts were types of Chriſts Prieſtly nature, they were types of his Prieſtly office, or if you pleaſe of the Prieſtly part of his office, whereof the perſon conſiſting both of divine and humane nature was the ſubject.
Dialogu Impoſition of hands with confeſſion of ſins upon the head of the ſin offering, ſignified the owners faith of dependance.
Then it ſignified the owners faith in Chriſt as the true ſacrifice to be ſlain for our ſin imputed to him; for beſides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole; he that aſſerteth the faith of dependance, aſſerteth therewithall the object thereof: (for faith and its object are Relates) a part of which object, and that directly intended in theſe texts, is this truth, to wit, That Chriſt did bear and take away the guilt and puniſhment due to the elect for ſin. In your reaſoning againſt the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged, (omitting any other) you commit theſe two errours.
1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours, nor hath our doctrine need of it; our concluſion ſufficiently proceeding from theſe Texts, according to the Expoſition given.
The Queſtion is not whether this rite of Impoſition of hands with confeſſion uf ſin doth repreſent Gods laying of the ſins of the Elect upon Chriſt: but whether the ſins of the elect were laid upon Chtiſt by God?
2. In diſputing for theſe rites to ſignifie faith of dependance, you do not only not diſpute againſt us, but in concluſion againſt your ſelf, becauſe the faith of the truth controverted, is included in the faith of dependance; nor do you in your whole diſcourſe concerning it interpoſe a ſyllable to the contrary, to provide againſt the retorting of your Argument upon your ſelf.
The concluſion then you argue for being for us, though we approve not your arguments, we think it beſt to paſſe them by, and eaſe the Reader of ſo much impertinence, only minding you that your aſſertion ſo often uſed, viz. that they impoſed hands, and leaned upon the ſacrifice with all their might, is groundleſſe, whatſoever you refer us to in Ainſworth out of Maimony: neither the Hebrew text, nor any other reaſon countenancing of it.
Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the ſin-offering, to ſignifie Gods laying our ſins upon Chriſt by imputation, then the ſame act of laying on of hands with confeſſion of ſins upon the Scape-goat muſt alſo ſignifie that God did impute our ſin to Christ as well after he was eſcaped from death by his reſurrection and aſcention, as when he made his oblation here upon earth, and thus by this doctrine Chriſt is gone as a guilty ſinner into heaven.
We have already ſaid that we make not this act a type of Gods laying ſin upon Chriſt: the live-goat and the ſcape-goat were both types of Chriſt, that of him dying, this of him delivered from death: ſin was laid upon the ſcape goat not after but before its eſcape; and ſignifieth that notwithſtanding his bearing of ſin typified by both goats, yet after he had ſuffered, which was typified by the killed goat, he then ſhould be delivered from thoſe ſufferings which were typified by the ſcapegoat: and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Chriſt is riſen again, aſcended, and ſits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all ſin.
Dialogu. But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this impoſition of hands with confeſſion of ſins of Gods imputation: but they underſtood it to be a typicall ſign of the faith of dependance upon Chriſts ſacrifice of Atonement; and ſo much the prayer of the High-Prieſt imports. See Ainſworth Lev. 16.21.
Anſw. M. Ainſworth on this very place ſaith, that this act ſhewed how our ſins ſhould be imputed unto Chriſt; it is not likely therefore he ſo underſtood the Hebrew doctors, otherwiſe we might well think he would either have forborn a needleſſe citation contrary in his judgement to the truth, or would have taken notice thereof. Neither is there any reaſon ſo to interpret their meaning from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him: the Atonement rightly underſtood is ſo farre from oppoſing, that it preſuppoſeth ſatisfaction to divine juſtice by the ſurety of the meritorious cauſe thereof.
Dialogu. If Gods imputing of the ſins of the Elect to Chriſt was the cauſe of Gods extreme wrath upon him, then by the ſame reaſon Chriſt doth still bear the wrath of God, for Chriſt doth ſtill bear our ſins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth.
Anſw. Chriſt on earth ſuffered the wrath of God, that is, the execution of divine juſtice, becauſe then he ſtood as a ſurety to ſatisfie the curſe due for ſin, Iſa. 53.10. But having ſatisfied it, Joh. 19.30. Col 2.14. the ſame juſtice that before puniſhed him, now acquits him, Rom. 8.34. If the debtor be diſcharged, and the Bill cancelled, doubtleſſe the ſurety is free; the ſame juſtice that holds the ſurety obliged to the creditor, whileſt the debt is unpayed, acquits him when the debt is payed.