be clearly expressed therein I. THESE things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments and how far they are of the nature of debts and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie but that we may proceed with all possible clearness in a debate of this consequence we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter for their concessions are in terms sometimes so fair as though the difference were meerly about words without any considerable difference in the thing it self If we charge them with denying satisfaction Crellius answers in the name of them that we do it unjustly for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God and agreeable to the Scriptures If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ they assert the contrary as appears by the same Author Nay Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too They acknowledge that Christ died for us nay that there was a commutation between Christ and us both of one person for another and of a price for a person and that the death of Christ may be said to move God to redeem us they acknowledge reconciliation and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay they assert that Christ's death was by reason of our sins and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin And what could we desire more if they meant the same thing by these words which we do They assert a satisfaction but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ but only as a condition intervening upon the performance of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory that he might free men from the punishment of their sins They attribute merit to Christ's death but in the same sense that we may merit too when we do what is pleasing to God They acknowledge that Christ died for us but not in our stead but for our advantage that there was a commutation but not such a one as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it when they speak of a moving cause they tell us they mean no more than the performance of any condition may be said to move or as our prayers and repentance do The reconciliation they speak of doth not at all respect God but us they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ but not depending upon it any otherwise than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven there to expiate our sins by his power and not by his blood but they utterly deny that the death of Christ is to be considered as a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or that it hath any further influence upon it than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and particularly the promise of remission of sins on which and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine and that faith may incline us to obedience and that obedience being the condition in order to pardon at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to exercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven II. 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denied by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed a death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great endâ— the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governour and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to God's dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he
meant meritorious or such upon supposition of which he ought to die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as tho' this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the caâ—â—es of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if â—ny other way could be thought suffiâ—â—ent to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of Atonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a two-fold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Atonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate depends for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment then our Adversaries grant that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it For the clearing of this I shall prove these two things 1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin but this 2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God III. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to our sins but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them Such are those which speak of Christ bearing our sins of our iniquities being laid upon him of his making himself an offering for sin and being made sin and a curse for us and of his dying for our sins All which I shall so far consider as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them 1. Those which speak of Christ's bearing our sins As to which we shall consider First The importance of the phrase in general of bearing sin and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute For the importance of the phrase Socinus acknowledges that it generally signifies bearing the punishment of sin in Scripture but that sometimes it signifies taking away The same is confessed by Crellius but he saith it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment but it is enough says he that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins may be said to bear our sins And for this sense he quotes Numb 14.33 And your Children shall wander in the Wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms until your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness Whereby saith he it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites but that by the occasion of their parents sins they should undergo that trouble in wandring in the Wilderness and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined setting aside a total destruction a greater instance of God's severity than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered Is it not said that God did swear in his wrath they should not enter into his rest Surely then the debarring them so long of that rest was an instance of God's wrath and so according to his own principles must
ascend well but doth that word signifie taking away No not constantly for it is frequently used for a sacrifice But doth it at any time signifie so Yes it signifies the removal of a thing from one place to another Is that the sense then he contends for here No but how then why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it signifies too a bare removal as Ezra 1.11 yet Psal. 102. 25. it is used for cutting off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebr. is make me not to ascend in the midst of my days But doth it here signifie utter destruction I suppose not but grant it what is this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the LXX useth not that word here which for all that we know was purposely altered so that at last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far enough from any such signification as Crellius would fix upon it unless he will assert that Christ taking away our sins was only a removal of them from Earth to Heaven But here Grotius comes in to the relief of Crellius against himself for in his Notes upon this place though he had before said that the word was never used in the New Testament in that sense yet he there saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abstulit for which he referrs us to Heb. 9.28 where he proceeds altogether as subtilly as Crellius had done before him for he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 14.33 Deut. 14.24 Isa. 53.12 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10.17 Numb 14.18 A most excellent way of interpreting Scripture considering the various significations of the Hebrew words and above all of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here mentioned For according to this way of arguing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all these and is rendred by them in the Greek Version so that by the same way that Grotius proves that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to take away but to bear punishment nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the bearing punishment in the strictest sense Ezek. 16 5◠54. and bearing sin in that sense Ezek. 16.58 Thou hast born thy leudness and thy abominations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more frequently used in this than in the other sense why shall its signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at any time make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in the same sense with that Nay I do not remember in any place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with sin but it signifies the punishment of it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 19.8 to bear his iniquity Lev. 20.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearing their iniquity in one verse is explained by being cut off from among their people in the next And in the places cited by Grotius that Numb 14.33 hath been already shewed to signifie bearing the punishment of sin and that Deut. 14.24 is plainly understood of a Sacrifice the other Isa. 53.12 will be afterwards made appear by other places in the same Chapter to signifie nothing to this purpose So that for all we can yet see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken either for bearing our sins as a sacrifice did under the Law or the punishment of them in either sense it serves our purpose but is far enough from our Adversaries meaning VI. But supposing we should grant them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie to take away let us see what excellent sense they make of these words of St. Peter Do they then say that Christ did take away our sins upon the Cross No they have a great care of that for that would make the expiation of sins to have been performed there which they utterly deny and say that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven that there he might expiate sins But doth not S◠Peter say that what was done by him here was in his body on the tree and they will not say he carried that with him to Heaven too Well but what then was the taking away of sin which belonged to Christ upon the Cross is it only to perswade men to live vertuously and leave off their sins This Socinus would have and Crellius is contented that it should be understood barely of taking away sins and not of the punishment of them but only by way of accession and consequence but if it be taken which he inclines more to for the punishment then he saith it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ but of the effect and yet a little after he saith those words of Christ bearing our sins are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it not including the effect of it in us not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death but that he did that by dying upon which the taking away of sin would follow or which had a great power for the doing it So uncertain are our Adversaries in affixing any sense upon these words which may attribute any effect at all to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins then they are only to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ to perswade men to leave their sins which we must have a care of understanding so as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it but only that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him and if we obey him we shall leave off our sins whether Christ had died or no supposing his miracles had the same effect on us which those of Moses had upon the Iews which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death But if this be all that was meant by Christ's bearing our sins in his body on the tree why might not St. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his Cross too for his death was an excellent example of patience and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth and that doctrine which he preached was repentance and remission of sins So that by this sense there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ. But taking the other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment of sin to the death of Christ on the Cross
these exceptions are will appear upon a true examination of the proper notion of Redemption which in its primary importance signifies no more than the obtaining of one thing by another as a valuable consideration for it Thence redimere anciently among the Latins signified barely to purchase by a valuable price for the thing which they had a right to by it and sometimes to purchase that which a man hath sold before thence the pactum redimendi in contracts still in whatever sense it was used by the Lawyers or others the main regard was to the consideration upon which the thing was obtained thence redimere delatorem pecunia h. e. eum à delatione deducere so redimere litem and redemptor litis was one that upon certain consideration took the whole charge of a suit upon himself and those who undertook the farming of customs at certain rates were called redemptores vectigalium qui redempturis auxissent vectigalia saith Livy And all those who undertook any publick work at a certain price redemptores antiquitus dicebantur saith Festus and Vlpian From hence it was applied to the delivery of any person from any inconvenience that he lay under by something which was supposed a valuable consideration for it And that it doth not only relate to captivity but to any other great calamity the freedom from which is obtained by what another suffers is apparent from these two remarkable expressions of Cicero to this purpose Quam quidem ego saith he speaking of the sharpness of the time à rep meis privatis domesticis incommodis libentissime redemissem And more expresly elsewhere Ego vitam omnium civium statum orbis terrae urbem hanc denique c. quinque hominum amentium ac perditorum poena redemi Where it is plain that redemption is used for the delivery of some by the punishment of others not from mere captivity but from a great calamity which they might have fallen into without such a punishment of those persons So vain is that assertion of Socinus Redimere nihil aliud propriè significat quam eum captivum è manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi dato liberare VIII And yet supposing we should grant that redemption as used in sacred Authors doth properly relate to captivity there is no necessity at all of that which our Adversaries contend so earnestly for viz. That the price must be paid to him that detains captive For we may very easily conceive a double sort of captivity from whence a redemption may be obtained the one by force when a Captive is detained purposely for advantage to be made by his redemption and the other in a judicial manner when the Law condemns a person to captivity and the thing designed by the Law is not a meer price but satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which a redemption may be obtained now in the former case it is necessary that the price be paid to the person who detains because the reason of his detaining was the expectation of the price to be paid but in the latter the detainer is meerly the instrument for execution of the Law and the price of redemption is not to be paid to him but to those who are most concerned in the honour of the Law But Crellius objects that the price can never be said to be paid to God because our redemption is attributed to God as the author of it and because we are said to be redeemed for his use and service now saith he the price can never be paid to him for whose service the person is redeemed But all this depends upon the former mistake as though we spake all this while of such a redemption as that is of a Captive by force in whom the detainer is no further concerned than for the advantage to be made by him and in that case the price must be paid to him who detains because it would otherwise be unsuccessful for his deliverance but in case of captivity by Law as the effect of disobedience the Magistrate who is concerned in the life of the person and his future obedience may himself take care that satisfaction may be given to the Law for his redemption in order to his future serviceableness From hence we see both that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper in this case of our redemption and that it is not a meer commutation of a price for a person but a commutation of one persons suffering for others which suffering being a punishment in order to satisfaction is a valuable consideration and therefore a price for the redemption of others by it Which price in this sense doth imply a proper substitution which was the thing to be proved Which was the first thing to be made good concerning the death of Christ being a sacrifice for sin viz. that there was a substitution of Christ in our stead as of the sacrifices of old under the Law and in this sense the death of Christ was a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption for us Nothing then can be more vain than the way of our Adversaries to take away the force of all this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a meer deliverance without any price which we deny not but the main force of our argument is from the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned and then we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to sins signifies expiation as Heb. 9.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when applied to persons it signifies the deliverance purchased by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be considered as a bare price or thing given but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance and is therefore not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation and we have shewed doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place CHAP. V. I. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christ's Oblation proposed II. Against him it is proved that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God III. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest IV. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power V. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true VI. Ephes. 5.2 proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an Oblation to God The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour belongs to expiatory Sacrifices Crellius his gross notion of it VII His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of sacrifices proposed VIII What influence
for any but Priests ever to come there His Power and Authority over the Church doth not imply it for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power his readiness to use that power cannot imply it which is the thing Smalcius insists on for his being a King of the Church doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church His receiving his power from God doth not imply that he was a Priest although Crellius insist on that unless all the Kings of the Earth are Priests by that means too and Christ could not have had a subordinate power as King as well as Priest But his death is more implied saith Crellius in the name of a Priest than of a King true if his death be considered as a Sacrifice but not otherwise For what is there of a Priest in bare dying do not others so too But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ than the meer title of a King What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while if his being so did not give the greatest encouragâ—ment to all his subjects nay it is plain the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people because that implies his power to defend them which the bare name of a Priest doth not So that there could be no reason at all given why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ if no more were implied in it than the exercise of his power with respect to us without any proper oblation to God For here is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him so that upon their hypothesis the name of High-Priest is a meer insignificant title used by the Author to the Hebrews without any foundation at all for it By no means saith Crellius for his expiation of sin is implyed by it which is not implied in the name of King True if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God which they deny but though they call it Expiation they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the Levitical Priesthood that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest who was thereby said to expiate the sins of the people how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense and yet still called by the same name V. But this being the main thing insisted on by them I shall prove from their own Principles that no expiation of sin in their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven by vertue of his Oblation of himself there and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider what their notion of the expiation of sins is which is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices There is a twofold power saith he of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin and that partly by declaring that God will do it and giving us a right to it partly by actual deliverance from punishment the other is by begetting Faith in us and so drawing us off from the practice of sin Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine and the other viz. the actual deliverance from punishment is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ for then only they say the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin viz. eternal death and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading men to believe or is his second coming when he shall sit as Judge the main part of his Priesthood for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christ's Priesthood than that is so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven or which is all one in their sence his continuance in Heaven to his second coming Yes saith Crellius his continuance there is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance and therefore it may be said that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins The utmost then that is attributed to Christ's being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing any thing in order to it for if he does it must either respect God or us but they deny though contrary to the importance of the words and the design of the places where they are used that the terms of Christ's interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us do note any respect to God but only to us if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin it must be either declaring perswading or actual deliverance but it is none of these by their own assertions and therefore that which they call Christ's Oblation or his being in Heaven signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing which hath no influence at all upon it should be looked on as a condition in order to it From whence it appears that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christ's Priesthood to respect us and not God they destroy the very nature of it and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it But if Christ be truly a High-Priest as the Apostle asserts that he is from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin which was the thing to be proved VI. 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering and a Sacrifice to God 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God which is plain from the words of St. Paul as Christ also hath loved us and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation but they deny That it is meant of an Expiatory
turned upon the head of that beast And Plutarch adds that after this solemn execration They cut off the head and of old threw it into the River but then gave it to strangers From which custom we observe that in a solemn Sacrifice for expiation the guilt of the offenders was by this rite of execration supposed to be transferred upon the head of the Sacrifice as it was in the Sacrifices among the Jews by the laying on of hands and that nothing was to be eaten of what was supposed to have that guilt transferred upon it From hence all Expiatory Sacrifices were at first whole Burnt-offerings as appears by the Patriarchal Sacrifices and the customs of other Nations and among the Jews themselves as we have already proved in all solemn offerings for the people And although in the sacrifices of private persons some parts were allowed to be eaten by the Priests yet those which were designed for expiation were consumed So that the greater the offering was to God the more it implied the Consumption of the thing which was so offered How strangely improbable then is it That the Oblation of Christ should not as under the Law have respect to his death and sufferings but to his entrance into Heaven wherein nothing is supposed to be consumed but all things given him with far greater power as our Adversaries suppose than ever he had before But we see the Apostle parallels Christ's suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices and his blood with the blood of them and consequently his offering up himself must relate not to his entrance into Heaven but to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world XI From all which it appears how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law Christ is said to offer up himself for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings than by his entrance into Heaven For it is apparent that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend but by our Adversaries own confession Christ's oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven hath no immediate respect at all to the expiation of sin only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins as Crellius saith now let us consider what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For 1. on the very same reason that his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation his death is so too viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation and far more properly so than the other since they make Christ's entrance and power the reward of his sufferings but they never make his sitting at the right hand of God the reward of his entrance into Heaven 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross was his own act but his entrance into Heaven was God's as themselves acknowledge and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be called Christ's offering up himself 3. If it were his own act it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins which his death had for our Adversaries say that his death was by reason of our sins and that he suffered to purge us from sin but his entrance into Heaven was upon his own account to enjoy that power and authority which he was to have at the right hand of God 4. How could Christ's entrance into Heaven be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin when Christ before his entrance into Heaven saith that all power was given to him in Heaven and Earth and the reason assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God gave him is because he humbled himself and became obedient to death even the death of the Cross So that the entrance of Christ into Heaven could not be the means of obtaining that power which was conferred before but the death of Christ is mentioned on that account in Scripture 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High Priest for his entrance into the Holy of Holies was on the account of the blood of the sin-offering which he carried in with him If there were then no expiatory Sacrifice before that was slain for the sins of men Christ could not be said to make any Oblation in Heaven for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain so that if men deny that Christ's death was a proper Sacrifice for sin he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven and Christ could not be said to enter thither as the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacrifice which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ. XII 2. There is as great an inconsistency in making the exercise of Christ's power in Heaven an oblation in any sense as in making Christ's entrance into Heaven to be the Oblation which had correspondency with the Oblations of the Law For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it Hath it any respect to God as all the legal Oblations had no for his intercession and power Crellius saith respect us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the mere exercise of power should be called a Sacrifice What analogy is there at all between them And how could he be then said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood when there was no consideration at all of any Sacrifice offered up to God so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must argue upon strange similitudes and fancy resemblances to himself which it was impossible for the Iews to understand him in who were to judge of the nature of Priesthood and Oblations in a way agreeable to the Institutions among themselves But was it possible for them to understand such Oblations and a Priesthood which had no respect at all to God but wholly to the People and such a entrance into the Holy of Holies without the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the people But such absurdities do men betray themselves into when they are forced to strain express places of Scripture to serve an hypothesis which they think themselves oblig'd to maintain XIII We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mentioned which will easily appear by these brief considerations 1. That the Apostle always speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done so as not to be done again which had been very improper if by the Oblation of Christ he had
Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death God's readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of God's readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring God's will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe That God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the meritorious cause for procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of God's will and decree to pardon but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin as well as the blood of Christ but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon And so as the acceptance of the condition required or the price paid may be said to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So God's acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering but to the act of God in accepting and it can be no other ways known than God's acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world VIII But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterâ—uge for therein lies their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtlety in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. Because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5.10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of hâ—â— Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ died for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one die but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order to something farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he would expiate sins
what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christ's dying for sinners and for the ungodly unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins Why are men said to be justified by his blood and not much rather by his glorious Resurrection if the blood of Christ be only considered as antecedent to the other And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage which could not have been the death in this sense but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene but it should not intervene for the other viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation but it should not for our life For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ and our reconciliation in order to that end what opposition then can be imagined that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other But he means that the death of Christ should not intervene any more what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ died only for this end before that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him But the main force of the Apostles argument lies in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled so that if he had so much kindness for enemies to die for their reconciliation we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation in the eternal salvation of them that obey him By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it Metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it IX 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1.3 When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9.12 But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the preterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the preterperfect tense as Matth. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9.12 is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the preterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christ's expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christ's entrance into Heaven and so it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christ's Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christ's entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christ's entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High Priest's entring into the Holy of Holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in Sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there
could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them X. Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christ's sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christ's entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full Power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christ's entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christ's power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. XI I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power of Christ. So that the question is Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us as it was a condition in order to it for in that sence it had no more influence upon it than his birth had but we have already seen that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood of Christ in order to the expiation of sin We do not deny that the death of Christ may be called a condition as the performance of any thing in order to an end may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained but we say that it is not a bare condition but such a one as implies a consideration upon which the thing is obtained being such as answers the end of him that grants it by which means it doth propitiate or atone him who had before just reason to punish but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them who have so highly offended him And in this sense we assert that Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a propitiation for our sins 1 John 2.2 4.10 which we take in the same sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the Sin-offering for atonement Ezek. 44.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall offer a sin-offering for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies and in the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken Ezek. 45.19 and the Ram for Atonement is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 5.8 And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Maccab. 3.33 which is of the greater consequence to us because Crellius would not have the sense either of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament out of the LXX and the Apocryphal Greek in both which we have found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense fully correspondent to what we plead for But he yet urges and takes a great deal of pains to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not always signifie to be appeased by another but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning and sometimes to expiate and then signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be granted proves nothing against us having already proved that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice and that there is
righteous persons who are not antecedently supposed to be so by his own Argument Christ being dealt with as a sinner must suppose guilt antecedent to it and since the Apostle declares it was not his own in those words Who knew no sin it follows that it must be the consideration of ours which must make him be dealt with as a sinner by him who made him to be sin for us But to suppose that Christ should be said to be made sin without any respect to sin is as much as if the Latins should call any one Scelus and mean thereby a very honest man or a Piaculum without any supposition of his own or others guilt But we are to consider that the sufferings of Christ seeming at first so inconsistent with that relation to God as his only Son which the Apostles assert concerning him they were obliged to vindicate his innocency as to men and yet withal to shew that with a respect to God there was sufficient reason for his permission of his undergoing these sufferings That he knew no sin was enough to clear his innocency as to men but then the question will be asked If he were so innocent why did God suffer all those things to come upon him Did not Abraham plead of old with God That he would not slay the righteous with the wicked because it was repugnant to the righteousness of his nature to do so That be far from thee to do after this manner to slay the righteteous with the wicked and that the righteous should be as the wicked that be far from thee shall not the Iudge of all the Earth do right How then comes God to suffer the most perfect innocency to be dealt with so as the greatest sins could not have deserved worse from men Was not his righteousness the same still And Abraham did not think the distinction of calamities and punishments enough to vindicate God's proceedings if the righteous should have been dealt withal as the wicked And if that would hold for such a measure of righteousness as might be supposed in such who were not guilty of the great abominations of those places that it should be enough not only to deliver themselves but the wicked too how comes it that the most perfect obedience of the Son of God is not sufficient to excuse him from the greatest sufferings of Malefactors But if his sufferings had been meerly from men God had been accountable only for the bare permission but it is said that he fore-ordained and determined these things to be that Christ himself complained that God had forsaken him and here that he made him sin for us and can we imagine all this to be without any respect to the guilt of sin as the cause of it Why should such an expression be used of being made sin might not many others have served sufficiently to declare the indignities and sufferings he underwent without such a phrase as seems to reflect upon Christ's innocency If there had been no more in these expressions than our Adversaries imagine the Apostles were so careful of Christ's honour they would have avoided such ill-sounding expressions as these were and not have affected Hebraisms and uncouth forms of speech to the disparagement of their Religion But this is all which our Adversaries have to say where words are used by them out of their proper sense That the Prophets and Apostles affected tricks of wit playing with words using them sometimes in one sense and presently quite in another So Crellius saith of Isaiah That he affects little elegancies of words and verbal allusions which makes him use words sometimes out of their proper and natural sense thence he tells us The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them And from this liberty of interpreting they make words without any other reason than that they serve for their purpose be taken in several senses in the same verse For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohn's Gospel makes the World to be taken in three several senses He was in the World there it is taken saith he for the men of the World in general The world was made by him there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse St. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so But St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not only made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentiles also and withal those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Iews but such as thought they ought to joyn the
the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation The High Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement from whence it is proved that Christ's Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice proved by the Iewish Laws and the customs of other Nations IX Whether Christ's Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law Several things observed from thence to our purpose X. All things necessary to a legal Oblation concurr in the death of Christ. XI His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it if the blood of Christ were no Sacrifice for sin In Sin-offerings for the People the whole was consumed no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests but in those for private Persons XII Christ's exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God XIII Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute XIV Objections answered I. THE second thing to prove the death of Christ a Sacrifice for sin is the Oblation of it to God for that end Grotius towards the conclusion of his Book makes a twofold oblation of Christ parallel to that of the Sacrifices under the Law the first of Mactation the second of Representation whereof the first was done in the Temple the second in the Holy of Holies so the first of Christ was on Earth the second in Heaven the first is not a bare preparation to a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice the latter not so much a Sacrifice as the commemoration of one already past Wherefore since appearing and interceeding are not properly sacerdotal acts any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offered he that takes away that Sacrifice doth not leave to Christ any proper Priesthood against the plain authority of the Scripture which assigns to Christ the office of a Priest distinct from that of a Prophet and a King To which Crellius replies That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven and may be applied to the death of Christ only as the condition by which he was to enjoy that power in Heaven whereby he doth expiate sins but the Priest was never said to expiate sins when he killed the beast but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holies to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven does answer but mactation saith he was not proper to the Priests but did belong to the Levites also And Christ was not truly a Priest while he was on Earth but only prepared by his sufferings to be one in Heaven where by the perpetual care he takes of his People and exercising his power for them he is said to offer up himself and intercede for them and by that means he dischargeth the Office of a High Priest for them For his Priestly Office he saith is never in Scripture mentioned as distinct from his Kingly but is comprehended under it and the great difference between them is that one is of a larger extension than the other is the Kingly Office extending to punishing and the Priestly only to expiation This is the substance of what Crellius more at large discourseth upon this subject Wherein he asserts these things That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation of sins respect God but us his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist being the exercise of his power for the good of his People 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth because the mactation had no reference to expiation any other than as a preparation for it and Christ not yet being constituted a High Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse by proving 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. II. 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us which appears from the first Institution of a High Priest mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 5.1 For every High Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins Id est saith Crellius elsewhere ut procuret peragat ea quae ad colendum ac propitiandum numen pertinent i. e. That he may perform the things which appertain to the worshipping and propitiating God We desire no more but that the propitiating God may as immediately be said to respect him as the worshipping of God doth or let Crellius tell us what sense the propitiating God will bear if all that the High-Priest had to do did immediately respect the people nay he saith not long after That it was the chief Office of a High-Priest to plead the cause of sinners with God and to take care that they may find him kind and propitious and not angry or displeased In what sense God was said to be moved by the Expiatory Sacrifices is not here our business to discuss it is sufficient for our purpose that they were instituted with a respect to God so as to procure his favour and divert his wrath In which sense the Priest is so often in the Levitical Law said by the offering up of Sacrifices to expiate the sins of the people But Crellius saith This ought not so to be understood as though God by Expiatory Sacrifices were diverted from his anger and inclined to pardon which is a plain contradiction not only to the words of the Law but to the instances that are recorded therein as when Aaron was bid in the time of the Plague to make an Atonement for the people for there is wrath gone out from the Lord and he stood between the living and the dead and the plague was stayed Was not God's anger then diverted here by the making this Atonement The like instance we read in David's time that by the offering burnt-offerings c. the Lord was intreated for the Land and the plague was stayed from Israel By which nothing can be more plain than that the primary intention of such Sacrifices and consequently of the Office of the Priest who offered them did immediately respect the Atoning God But yet Crellius urgeth This cannot be said of all or of the most proper Expiatory Sacrifices but we see it said of more than the meer Sacrifices for sin as appointed by the Law viz of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings and incense in the examples mentioned So that these Levitical Sacrifices did all respect the atoning God although in some particular cases different Sacrifices were to be offered for it is said the
meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us which yet is and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his footstool 2. That he still speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Iews and therefore the Oblation of Christ must be in such a way as was agreeable to what was used in the Levitical Sacrifices which we have already at large proved he could not do in our Adversaries sense 3. That the Apostle speaks of such a Sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offered to God and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins which they say is meant by sitting at the right hand of God cannot be that Sacrifice for sins Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it which in what sense it can be called a Sacrifice for sins since themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them I cannot understand 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once which if it had been repeated doth imply that Christ's sufferings must have been repeated too For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but the repeated exercise of Christ's power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christ's frequent suffering nor his frequent entrance into Heaven which might have been done without suffering therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself as was implyed in his death and sufferings 5. He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him when he came into the World but our Adversaries deny that he carried the same Body into Heaven and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven but what was performed here on Earth But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill when they tell us with much confidence that the World into which Christ is here said to come is not to be understood of this World but of that to come which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word when taken absolutely as it is here but to the whole scope and design of the place For he speaks of that World wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were used and the Levitical Law was observed although not sufficient for perfect expiation and so rejected for that end and withal he speaks of that World wherein the chearful obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen for he saith Lo I come to do thy will O God which is repeated afterwards but will they say that this World was not the place into which Christ came to obey the Will of his Father and how could it be so properly said of the future World Lo I come to do thy will when they make the design of his ascension to be the receiving the reward of his doing and suffering the will of God upon Earth XIV But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews that Christ's entrance into Heaven was necessary to his being a perfect High-Priest for he was to be made higher than the Heavens and if he were on earth he should not be a Priest but he was a Priest after the power of an endless life Neither could he say they be a perfect High-Priest till those words were spoken to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee which as appears by other places was after the Resurrection But all the sufferings he underwent in the world were only to qualify him for this Office in Heaven therefore it is said That in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest c. This is the substance of what is produced by Crellius and his Brethren to prove that Christ did not become a perfect High-Priest till he entred into Heaven But it were worth the knowing what they mean by a perfect High-Priest Is it that Christ did then begin the Office of a High-Priest and that he made no offering at all before No that they dare not assert at last but that there was no perfect Sacrifice offered for sin otherwise Socinus contends That Christ did offer upon earth and that for himself too So that all kind of offering is not excluded by themselves before Christ's 〈◊〉 into Heaven But if they mean by perfect High-Priest in Heaven that his Office of High-Priest was not consummated by what he did on earth but that a very considerable part of the Priesthood of Christ was still remaining to be performed in Heaven it is no more than we do freely acknowledge and this is all we say is meant by those places For the Apostles design is to prove the excellency of the Priesthood of Christ above the Aaronical which he doth not only from the excellency of the Sacrifice which he offered above the blood of Bulls and Goats but from the excellency of the Priest who did excel the Aaronical Priests both in regard of his calling from God which is all the Apostle designs Heb. 5.5 not at all intending to determine the time when he was made but by whom he was made High-Priest even by him that had said Thou art my Son c. and in regard of the excellency of the Sanctuary which he entred into which was not an earthly but a heavenly Sanctuary and in regard of the perpetuity of his function there Not going in once a year as the High-Priests under the Law did but there ever living to make intercession for Vs Now this being the Apostles design we may easily understand why he saith That he was to be a heavenly High-Priest and if he had been on earth he could not have been a Priest The meaning of which is only this that if Christ's Office had ended in what he did on earth he would not have had such an excellency as he was speaking of for then he had ceased to be at all such a High Priest having no Holy of Holies to go into which should as much transcend the earthly Sanctuary as his Sacrifice did the blood of Bulls and Goats Therefore in correspondency to that Priesthood which he did so far excell in all the parts of it he was not to end his Priesthood merely with the blood which was shed for a Sacrifice but he was to carry it into Heaven and present it before God and to be a perpetual intercessor in the behalf of his people And so was in regard of the perpetuity of his Office a Priest after the Law of an endless Life But lest the people should imagine that so great and excellent a High Priest being so far exalted above them should have no sense or compassion upon the infirmities of his people therefore to encourage them to adhere to