him that did the service perfect 〈◊〉 pertaining to the Conscience and that it 〈◊〉 impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goâ—â— should take away sin So that the propâ—… expiation which was made by them 〈◊〉 civil and ritual relating either to corporal punishment or to legal uncleanness â—rom whence the Apostle well proves the â—ecessity of a higher Sacrifice to make â—xpiation for sins as pertaining to the Conâ—â—ience But that expiation among the Jewsâ—id â—id relate to that Polity which was estaâ—lished among them as they were a Peoâ—le under the Government of a body of â—aws distinct from the rest of the world â—nd they being consider'd as such it is â—ain to enquire whether they had only â—â—mporal or eternal promises for it was imâ—ossible they should have any other than â—emporal unless we imagine that Godâ—ould â—ould own them for a distinct people in â—â—other World as he did in this For what â—romises relate to a People as such must â—onsider them as a People and in that â—â—pacity they must the blessings of a Socieâ—… viz. peace plenty number of People â—…ngth of dayes c. But we are far from â—enying that the general Principles of â—eligion did remain among them viz. that â—…re is a God and a rewarder of them that â—…k him and all the Promises God made 〈◊〉 the Patriarchs did continue in force as another Countrey and were continually â—…proved by the Prophetical instructions â—…ong them But we are now speaking what did respect the people in general by vertue of that Law which was givâ— them by Moses and in that respect 〈◊〉 punishment of faults being either death 〈◊〉 exclusion from the publick Worship tâ—… expiation of them was taking away tâ—… obligation to either of these whiâ—â— was the guilt of them in that considerâ—tion But doth not this take away the typiâ—… nature of these sacrifices No but it muâ—… rather establisheth it For as Socinus argues If the expiation was only typiâ—… there must be something in the typâ—… correspondent to that which is typifâ—… by it As the Brazen Serpent typifiâ—… Christ and the benefit which was to coâ—… by him because as many as looked upâ—… it were healed And Noahs Ark is sâ—… to be a type of Baptism because as â—…ny as enter'd into that were saved froâ— the deluge So Corinth 10. the Apostâ—… saith that those things happen'd to thâ—… in types v. 11. because the events whiâ—… happen'd to them did represent thoâ—… which would fall upon disobedient Châ—â—stians So that to make good the the notion of a Type we must assert an expâ—…tion that was real then and agreeable 〈◊〉 that dispensation which doth represâ—… an expiation of a far higher nature whiâ—… was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ. Which being premised I now come to â—rove that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed 〈◊〉 stead of the offenders themselves Which will appear from Leviticus 17. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls for it is the blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul The utmost that Crellius would have meant by this place is that there is a double reason assigned of the prohibition of eating blood viz. that the life was in the blood and that the blood was designed for expiation but he makes these wholly independent upon each other But we say that the proper reason assigned against the eating of the blood is that which is elswhere given when this Precept is mention'd viz. that the blood was the life as we may see Gen. 9. 4. Levit. 17. 14. but to confirm the reason given that the blood was the life he addes that God had given them that upon the Altar for an Atonement for their Souls So the Arabick Version renders it and therefore have I given it you upon the Altar viz. because the blood is the life And hereby a sufficient reason is given why God did make choice of the blood for atonement for that is expreâ—… in the latter clause for it is the blood 〈◊〉 maketh an atonement for the Soul wâ—… should this be mention'd here if no 〈◊〉 were intended but to give barely anothâ—… reason why they should not eat the blooâ— what force is there more in this claâ—… to that end than in the foregoing 〈◊〉 therein God had said that he had given them for an Atonement If no more hâ—… been intended but the bare prohibitâ—… of common use of the blood on the 〈◊〉 count of its being consecrated to sacâ—… use it had been enough to have said thâ—… the blood was holy unto the Lord as 〈◊〉 is in the other instances mention'd bâ—… Crellius of the holy Oyntment and Perfuâ—… for no other reason is there given why 〈◊〉 should not be profaned to common 〈◊〉 but that it should be holy for the Lord therefore the blood had been forbiddâ—… upon that account there had been no â—…cessity at all of adding that the blood 〈◊〉 it that made atonement for the Soul whiâ—… gives no peculiar reason why they shoâ—… not eat the blood beyond that of bâ—… consecration of it to a sacred use but we consider it as respecting the first clausâ— viz. For the life of the flesh is in the blooâ— then there is a particular reason why thâ—… blood should be for atonement viz. because the life was in that and therefore when the blood was offer'd the life of the Beast was supposed to be given instead of the life of the offender According to that of Ovid Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus This will be yet made clearer by another instance produced by Crellius to explain this which is the forbidding the eating of fat which saith he is joyned with this of blood Levit. 3. 17. It shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings that ye eat neither fat nor blood To the same purpose Levit. 7. 23 25 26. Now no other reason is given of the prohibition of the fat but this All the fat is the Lords Which was enough to keep them from eating it but we see here in the case of blood somewhat further is assigned viz. that it was the life and therefore was the most proper for expiation the life of the beast being substituted in the place of the offenders Which was therefore call'd animalis hostia among the Romans as Grotius observes upon this place and was distinguished from those whose entrails were observed for in those Sacrifices as Servius saith sola anima Deo sacratur the main of the Sacrifice lay in shedding of the blood which was call'd the Soul and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place From whence it appears that such a sacrifice was properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both relating to the blood and the
of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of â—…n Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of â—…e blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of 〈◊〉 on the Altar and the consuming of the part â—…f the sacrifice or the whole there that it was designed for the expiation of sin From whence it follows that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices is very properâ—y used by S. Paul concerning Christs giving up himself for us â—o that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary â—o the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeaâ—… to it But Crellius hath yet a further Argumeâ—… to prove that Christs death cannot be 〈◊〉 meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. 〈◊〉 the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the â—…lation whereby the thing is consecrated to 〈◊〉 honour and service of God to which the maâ—…tion is but a bare preparation which 〈◊〉 proves Because the slaying the sacrifice 〈◊〉 belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 〈◊〉 10 11. but the oblation only to the Prieâ—… To this I answer 1. The mactation may 〈◊〉 considered two ways either with a respâ—… to the bare instrument of taking away tâ—… life or to the design of the Offerer of thâ—… which was to be sacrificed As the macâ—…tion hath a respect only to the instrumeâ—â— so it is no otherways to be considered thâ—… as a punishment but as it hath a respect 〈◊〉 him that designs it for a Sacrifice so tâ—… shedding of the blood hath an immediâ—… influence on the expiation of sin Aâ—… that by this clear Argument The blood 〈◊〉 said to make an Atonement for the soul 〈◊〉 the reason given is because the life of 〈◊〉 flesh is in the blood So that which was 〈◊〉 life is the great thing which makes 〈◊〉 atonement and when the blood was shâ—… the life was then given from whence follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for atonement lay in the shedding of â—he blood for that end Thence the Apostleâ—ttributes â—ttributes remission of sins to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the shedding of the blood and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God which was already shed for the expiation of sins which was therefore necessary to be performed that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts which was the meanest part of the service the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary and least of all that of the High-Priest unless some solemn action of his had been performed such as the entring into the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation and carrying it and sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people And it is observable that although the Levitical Law be silent in the common Sacrifices who were to kill them whether the Priests or the Levites yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin 〈◊〉 is expressely said that he should not oâ—… kill the bullock of the sin-offering which 〈◊〉 for himself but the goat of the sin-offeriâ—â— which is for the people And although thâ—… Talmudists dispute from their Traditioâ—… on both sides whether any one else mighâ—… on the day of expiation slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest yet it iâ—… no news for them to dispute against thâ—… Text and the Talmud it self is clear thaâ— the High-Priest did it From whence iâ—… appears there was something peculiar oâ—… that day as to the slaying of the sin-offerings and if our Adversaries opinion hold good that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did if not alone yet chiefly represent thâ—… sacrifice of Christ no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at his carrying the blood into the holy of holies but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too from whence it will unavoidably follow that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest when he enter'd into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins It is then to no purpose at all if Crelliâ—… could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices which he will not say the Sacrifice of Christ was represented by the Levites might kill the beasts for sacrifice for it appears that in those sacrifices wherein themselves contend that Christs was represented the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither Therefore if we speak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ those were the Jews and we make not them Priests in it for they aimed at no more than taking away his life as the Popae among the Romans and those whose bare office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Jews did but if we consider it with a respect to him that offer'd up his life to God then we say that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it it being designed for the expiation of sin and by vertue of this blood-shed for that end he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies there ever living to make intercession for us But the vertue of the consequent acts depends upon the efficacy of the blood shed for expiation otherwise the High-Priest might have enter'd with the same effect into the Holy of Holies with any other blood besides that which was shed on purpose as a sin-offering for expiation of the sins of the people which it was unlawfull for him to doe And from hence it is that the Apostle to the Hebrews insists so much on the comparison between the blood of Christ and the blood of the legal sacrifices and the efficacy of the one far above the other in its power of expiation which he needed not to have done if the shedding of his blood had been only a preparation for his entrance on his Priesthood in Heaven So that the proper notion of a Sacrifice for sin as it notes the giving the life of one for the expiation of the sins of another doth properly lye in the mactation though other sacrificial acts may be consequent upon it So it was in the animales hostiae among the Romans in which saith Macrobius Sola anima Deo sacratur of which he tells us Virgil properly speaks in those words Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis And that we may the better understand what he means by the anima here he saith elsewhere
as Macrobius and Servius observe out of his excellent skill and accuracy in the Pontifical rites Sanguine placastis ventos virgine caesa Cum primum Iliacas Danai venistis ad oras Sanguine quaerendi reditus animaque litandum Argolica Which shews that the expiation was supposed to lye in the blood which they call'd the Soul as the Scripture doth And the Persians as Strabo tells us looked upon the bare mactation as the Sacrifice for they did not porricere as the Romans call'd it they laid none of the parts of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to be consumed there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for God regarded nothing but the Soul in the sacrifice which words Eustathius likewise useth upon Homer of the Sacrifices of the Magi. And Strabo affirms of the ancient Lusitani that they cut off nothing of the Sacrifice but consumed the entrails whole but though such sacrifices which were for divination were not thought expiatory and therefore different from the animales hostiae yet among the Persians every sacrifice had a respect to expiation of the whole people For Herodotus tells us that every one that offers Sacrifice among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayes for good to all Persians and the King But thus much may serve to prove against Crellius that the mactation in an Expiatory Sacrifice was not a meer preparation to a Sacrifice but that it was a proper sacrificial act and consequently that Christ acted as High-Priest when he gave himself for us an offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour But this will further appear from those places wherein Christ is said to offer up himself once to God the places to this purpose are Heb. 7. 27. Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the Peoples for this he did once when he offer'd up himself Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offer'd himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead works to serve the living God V. 25 26 27 28. Nor yet that he should offer himself often as the High-Priest entreth into the holy place every year with the blood of others for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to dye but after this the Judgement so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation Heb. 10. 10 11 12. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all And every High-Priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offer'd one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God To these places Crellius gives this answer That the name of Oblation as applyed to Christ primarily signifies Christs first entrance into Heaven and appearance before the face of God there but consequently the continuance of that appearance so that when a thing is once actually exhibited and presented it is said to be once offer'd although being offer'd it alwayes remains in the same place and so may be said to be a continual Oblation But this first appearance saith he hath a peculiar agreement with the legal Oblation and therefore the name of Oblation doth most properly belong to that because Christ by this means obtained that power on which the perfect remission of our sins depends but although the continuance of that appearance seems only consequentially to have the name of Oblation belonging to it yet in its own nature it hath a nearer conjunction with the effect of the Oblation viz. the remission of sins or deliverance from punishment and doth of it self conferre more to it than the other doth And therefore in regard of that Christ is said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood and to offer and intercede for us from the time he is said to sit down at the right hand of God Against this answer I shall prove these two things 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self 2. That it by no means agrees to the places before mention'd 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self in two things 1. In making that to be the proper Oblation in correspondency to the Oblations of the Law which hath no immediate respect to the expiation of sins 2. In making that to have the most immediate respect to the expiation of sins which can in no tolerable sense be call'd an Oblation For the first since Crellius saith that the proper notion of Oblation is to be taken from the Oblations in the Levitical Law we must consider what it was there and whether Christs first entrance into Heaven can have any correspondency with it An Oblation under the Law was in generall any thing which was immediately dedicated to God but in a more limited sense it was proper to what was dedicated to him by way of Sacrifice according to the appointments of the Levitical Law We are not now enquiring what was properly call'd an Oblation in other Sacrifices but in those which then were for expiation of sin And in the Oblation was first of the persons for whom the Sacrifice was offer'd So in the Burnt-offering the person who brought it was to offer it at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation i. e. as the Jewes expound it at the entrance of the Court of the Priests and there he was to lay his hands upon the head of it and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him This Offering was made before the Beast was slain after the killing the beast then the Priests were to make an Offering of the blood by sprinkling it round about the Altar of Burnt-offerings the rest of the blood say the Jewes was poured out by the Priests at the South-side of the Altar upon the foundation where the two holes were for the passage into the Channel which convey'd the blood into the valley of Kidron thus the blood being offered the parts of the beast were by the Priests to be laid upon the Altar and there they were all to be consumed by fire and then it was call'd an Offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the Lord. The same rites were used in the Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings as to the laying on of hands and the sprinkling the blood and consuming some part by fire and in the sin-offerings there was to be the same imposition of hands but concerning the sprinkling of the blood and the way of consuming the remainders of the Sacrifice there was this considerable difference that in the common sin-offerings for particular persons
the blood was sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of burnt-offerings but in the sin-offerings for the High-Priest and the Congregation or all the People he was to carry the blood within the Sanctuary and to sprinkle of it seven times before the Vail of the Sanctuary and some of the blood was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense but the remainder of the blood and the same things which were offered by fire in Peace-Offerings were to be disposed of accordingly on the Altar of Burnt-offerings And withall there was this great difference that in other sin-offerings the Priests were to eat the remainder of the sacrifice in the Holy place but in these there was nothing to be eaten by them for the whole Bullock was to be carried forth without the Camp and there he was to be burned till all were consumed For it was an exâ—ress Law That no sin-offering whereof any 〈◊〉 the blood is brought into the tabernacle of â—he Congregation to reconcile withall in the Holy-place shall be eaten it shall be burnt in â—â—e fire All the difference that was on the great day of Atonement was this that the High-Priest himself was to slay the Sin-offerings and then to carry the blood of them into the Holy of Holies and there was to sprinkle â—he blood with his finger towards the Mercyâ—â—at seven times after which and the sending away the scape-goat the ceremonies were the same for the Atonement of the people which were at other solemn sin-offerings for the Priest or the people From all which being thus laid together we shall observe several things which are very material to our purpose 1. That in the oblations which were made for expiation of sins the difference between the mactation and the oblation did arise from the difference between the Priest and the Sacrifice For the Priests Office was to atone but he was to atone by the Sacrifice on which account although the Priest were to offer the Sacrifice for himself yet the oblation did not lie in the bare presenting himself before God but in the presenting the blood of that Sacrifice which was shed in order to expiation If we coulâ— have supposed that the High-Priest undeâ— the Law instead of offering a Goat for 〈◊〉 Sin-offering for the people on the day oâ—… Atonement should have made an oblatioâ—… of himself to God by dying for the expiation of their sins In this case his death being the Sacrifice and himself the Priest the mactation as it relates to his own act and his oblation had been one and the same thing For his death had been nothing else but the offering up himself to God in order to the expiation of the sins of the people and there can be no reason why the oblation must be of necessity something consequent to his death since all things necessary to a perfect oblation do concur in it For where there is something solemnly devoted to God and in order to the expiation of sins and by the hand of a Priest there are all things concurring to a legal oblation but in this case all these things do concur and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ onely consequent to his Ascension since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation In the Law we grant that the oblation made by the Priest was consequent to the death of the beast for Sacrifice but the reason of that was because the beast could not offer up 〈◊〉 self to God and God had made it necesâ—ry that the Priest should expiate sins â—ot by himself but by those Sacrifices â—nd therefore the oblation of the blood â—as after the Sacrifice was slain neither â—ould this have been solved barely by the â—riests slaying of the Sacrifices for this being 〈◊〉 act of violence towards the beasts that â—…ere thus kill'd could not be a proper obâ—ation which must suppose a consent anteâ—edent to it All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law in which so many several things were to concur to make up a sacrifice for sin viz. The first offering made by the party concerned of what was under his dominion viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the tabernacle of the Congregation but the beast not being able to offer up it self it was necessary for the offering up its blood that it must be slain by others and for the better understanding not onely of the efficacy of the blood but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation he was to take the blood and sprinkle some of it on the Altar and pour out the rest at the foundation of it But since we assert a far more noble and excellent Sacrifice by the Son of God freely offering up himself to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world why may not this bâ—… as proper an oblation made unto God 〈◊〉 any was under the Law and far more excellent both in regard of the Priest and thâ—… Sacrifice why should his oblation of himself then be made onely consequent to hiâ—… death and resurrection Which latter being by our Adversaries made not his own act but Gods upon him and his entrance into Heaven being given him as they assert as a reward of his sufferings in what tolerable sense can that be call'd an oblation of himself which was conferred upon him as a reward of his former sufferings From whence it follows that upon our Adversaries own grounds the death of Christ may far more properly be call'd the oblation of himself than his entrance into Heaven and that there is no necessity of making the oblation of Christ consequent to his death there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law 2. We observe That the oblation as performed by the Priest did not depend upon his presenting himself before God but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice which had been already slain for the expiation of sins If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies and there onely â—esented himself before the Mercy-seat â—…d that had been all required in order 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins there had been â—…me pretence for our Adversaries makâ—g Christs presenting himself in Heaven 〈◊〉 be the oblation of himself to God but â—…nder the Law the efficacy of the High-â—iests entrance into the Holy of Holies did â—epend upon the blood which he carried in â—…ither which was the blood of the Sinâ—…ring which was already slain for the expiation of sins And in correspondency â—…o this Christs efficacy in his entrance inâ—… Heaven as it respects our expiation must â—ave a respect to that Sacrifice which was â—ffered up to God antecedent to it And 〈◊〉 wonder our Adversaries do so much insist on the High Priests entring into the most â—…oly place once a year as though all the exâ—iation had depended upon that whereas
condition gave him an immediate right to the benefit of the promise If it be said That his own act was not only necessary in bringing the Sacrifice but the Priests also in offering up the blood This will not make it at all the more reasonable because the pardon of sin should not only depend upon a◠〈◊〉 mans own act but upon the act of another which he could not in reason be accountable for if he miscarried in it If the Priest should refuse to do his part or be unfit to do it or break some Law in the doing of it how hard would it seem that a mans sins could not be expiated when he had done all that lay in his own power in order to the expiation of them but that another person whose actions he had no command over neglected the doing his duty So that if the Sacrifice had no other influence on expiation but as a part of obedience in all reason the expiation â—hould have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him whose sins were to be expiated by 〈◊〉 But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation That if it were by Substitution â—hen the Expiation would be most properly attriâ—â—ted to the Sacrifices themselves whereas it is â—…ly said that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is â—btained but that God or the Priest do expiate â—…d to God it belongs properly because he takes â—ay the guilt and punishment of sin which is â—aith he all meant by expiation to the Priest â—…ly consequently as doing what God requires 〈◊〉 order to it and to the Sacrifices only as the â—â—nditions by which it was obtained But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God and implies no more than bare pardon it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of blood so that without that there was no remission How improperly doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purifying and in correspondency to that the blood of Christ purging our Consciences and that all things under the Law were purified with blood Had all this no other signification but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance but as a meer act of obedience when God had required it why doth not the Apostle rather say without Gods favour there is no remission than without the sheding of blood if all the expiation did properly belong to that and only very remotely to the blood of the Sacrifice What imaginable necessity was there that Christ must shed his blood in order to the expiation of our sins if all that blood of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon though a slight part of obedience in it self Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency to these Levitical Sacrifices for that was surely no slight part of his obedience Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him since our Adversaries say that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world But upon this supposition that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation the Apostles discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds For what necessity in the thing was there because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law therefore the blood of Christ must be so now although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end But the Apostles words and way of Argumentation doth imply that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other in order to Expiation although a far greater in the blood of Christ than could be in the other as the thing typified ought to exceed that which was the representation of it From hence we see that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law not immediately to God as belonging properly to him but to the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean Which he had very great reason to do since God expresly saith to the Jews that the blood was given them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad expiandum to expiate for their souls for the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall expiate the soul. Than which words nothing could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices but primarily to God and consequentially to the Priest who is never said to expiate but by the Sacrifice which he offered so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it But from this we may easily understand in what sense God is said to expiate sins where it hath respect to a Sacrifice which is that we are now discoursing of and not in any larger or more improper use of the word for since God himself hath declared that the blood was given for Expiation the Expiation which belongs to God must imply his acceptance of it for that end for which it was offered For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him he may be said in that sense to expiate because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins And we do not say that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement that it doth imply his undergoing any punishment which is impossible to suppose but that where it is attributed to a Sacrifice as the means of Atonement there we say it doth not imply a bare condition but such a Substitution of one in the place of another that on the account of that the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby And to this sense the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth very well agree for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny but that Gen. 31. 39. it properly signifies Luere or to bear punishment although they say it no where else signifies so and the reason is because it is applied to the Altar and such other things which are not capable of it but doth it hence follow that it should not retain that signification where the matter will bear it as in the case of Sacrifices And although it be frequently rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices because those words when used concerning them do signifie Expiation too Grotius proves that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek
soul that is expiated by it and the LXX do accordingly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the last clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence Eusebius calls these Sacrifices of living Creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards saith they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Crellius elsewhere grants that where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth imply that one doth undergo the punishment which another was to have undergone which is all we mean by substitution it being done in the place of another From whence it follows that the Sacrifices under the Law being said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth necessarily inferr a substitution of them in the place of the offenders And from hence may be understood what is meant by the Goat of the Sin-offering bearing the iniquity of the Congregation to make atonement for them before the Lord Levit. 10. 17. for Crellius his saying That bearing is as much as taking away or declaring that they are taken away hath been already disproved And his other answer hath as little weight in it viz. That it is not said that the sacrifice did bear their iniquities but the Priest For 1. The Chaldee Paraphrast and the Syriack Version understand it wholly of the Sacrifice 2. Socinus himself grants That if it were said the Priest did expiate by the sacrifices it were all one as if it were said that the sacrifices themselves did expiate because the expiation of the Priest was by the sacrifice Thus it is plain in the case of uncertain murther mentioned Deut. 21. from the first to the tenth If a murther were committed in the Land and the person not known who did it a heifer was to have her head cut off by the Elders of the next City and by this means they were to put away the guilt of innocent blood from among them The reason of which was because God had said before That blood defiled the land and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it From whence it appears that upon the shedding of blood there was a guilt contracted upon the whole Land wherein it was shed and in case the Murtherer was not found to expiate that guilt by his own blood then it was to be done by the cutting off the head of a heifer instead of him In which case the death of the heifer was to do as much towards the expiating the Land as the death of the Murtherer if he had been found And we do not contend that this was designed to expiate the Murtherers guilt which is the Objection of Crellius against this instance but that a substitution here was appointed by God himself for the expiation of the people For what Crellius adds That the people did not deserve punishment and therefore needed no expiation it is a flat contradiction to the Text For the prayer appointed in that case is Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israels charge and the blood shall be expiated for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here which is in the other places where Expiation is spoken of So that here must be some guilt supposed where there was to be an expiation and this expiation was performed by the substitution of a sacrifice in the place of the offender Which may be enough at present to shew that a substitution was admitted by the Law of a sacrifice instead of the offender in order to the expiation of guilt but whether the offender himself was to be freed by that Sacrifice depends upon the terms on which the sacrifice was offered for we say still that so much guilt was expiated as the sacrifice was designed to expiate if the sacrifice was designed to expiate the guilt of the offender his sin was expiated by it if not his in case no sacrifice was allowed by the Law as in that of murther then the guilt which lay upon the Land was expiated although the offender himself were never discovered I now come to prove that in correspondency to such a substitution of the sacrifices for sin under the Law Christ was substituted in our room for the expiation of our guilt and that from his being said to dye for us and his death being call'd a price of Redemption for us 1. From Christs being said to dye for us By S. Peter For Christ hath also once suffered for sins the just for the unjust by whom he is also said to suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and for us in the flesh By S. Paul he is said to dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the ungodly and to give himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for all and to taste death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man By Caiaphas speaking by inspiration he is said to dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the people So Christ himself instituting his last Supper said This is my body which was given and my blood which was shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you and before he had said That the Son of man came to give his life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many We are now to consider what arts our Adversaries have made use of to pervert the meaning of these places so as not to imply a substitution of Christ in our room 1. They say That all these phrases do imply no more than a final cause viz. That Christ died for the good of mankind for the Apostle tells us We are bound to lay down our lives for the Brethren and S. Paul is said to suffer for the Church To which I answer 1. This doth not at all destroy that which we now plead for viz. That these phrases do imply a substitution of Christ in our room For when we are bid to lay down our lives for our brethren a substitution is implied therein and supposing that dying for another doth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him yet what doth this hinder substitution unless it be proved that one cannot obtain any benefit for another by being substituted in his room Nay it is observable that although we produce so many places of Scripture implying such a substitution they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christs suffering in our stead all that they say is That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie so which we never said it did who say that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not instead of our sins but by reason of them but we assert that when one person is said to dye for others as in the places mentioned no other sense can be so proper and agreeable as dying in the stead of the other 2. Socinus himself grants That there is a peculiarity