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
were the Christ the Son of God for he no doubt had heard of the Result of this Conference in Solomon's Porch Iesus said unto him Thou hast said S. Mark more expresly Iesus said I am And this was the Blasphemy for which they put him to death as appears by the Evangelists So that this ought to be a Dispute only between Iews and Christians since it was the very point for which they condemned him to death And in his last most divine Prayer just before his suffering he owns the Glory which he had with the Father before the World had a being And now O Father glorifie thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the World was Was this nothing but the Glory which God had designed to give him This is so far from being peculiar to Christ that it is common to all whom God designs to glorifie and takes away the distinction between the Decree and the Execution of it 2. As to the Apostles the Reason we believe their Testimony is that they were Men of great Sincerity and Plainness and of great Zeal for the Honour and Glory of God And according to this Character let us examine what they say concerning Christ Iesus He that was most conversant with him and beloved by him and lived to see his Divinity contested by some and denied by others is most ample in setting it forth in his Admirable Sublime and Divine Introduction to his Gospel Which all the Wit of Mankind can never make tolerable Sense of if they deny Christ's being the Eternal Son of God and it is he that hath preserved those Conferences with the Iews wherein he asserts his own Divinity S. Paul was a Stranger to him while he lived but at the same time when he was so zealous to perswade the Gentiles to the Worship of God and not of Creatures he calls him God over all blessed for evermore And when he saith that the Eternal Power and Godhead are known by the Creation of the World he attributes the Creation of all things to Christ applying to him those words of the Psalmist Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth and the Heaven the Work of thy hands Which cannot be understood of any Metaphorical Creation And after the strictest Examination of Copies those will be found the best which have that Reading on which our Translation is grounded And without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God wâ—s manifest in the Flesh. So that God's being manifest in the Flesh is made a great Part of the Mystery of Christianity But here arises a Difficulty which deserves to be considered i. e. If there were nothing in the Christian Doctrine but the Way of Saving sinners by the Doctrine and Example of Christ there would be little Objection to be made to it since the obtaining Eternal Life is certainly the best thing can be proposed to Mankind and the Precepts of Christ are Divine and Spiritual Plain and Easie to be Understood and Agreeable to the Reason of Mankind but many other things are imposed on Men as necessary to be believed concerning Christ Iesus as to his Divinity Incarnation and the Hypostatical Vnion of both Natures which perplex and confound our Understandings and yet these things are not only deliverâ—d as Mysteries of the Christian Faith but the Belief of them is required as necessary to the Salvation of Sinners whereas if they are Revealed they are no longer Mysteries and if they are not Revealed how come they to be made Articles of Faith The Scripture knows of no other Mysteries of Faith but such as were hidden before the Revelation of them but since they are Revealed they are plain and open to all mens Capacities and therefore it is a great Injury to the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel to impose such incomprehensible Mysteries as Necessary Articles of Faith and it is abusing the Credulity of Mankind to make such things necessary to be believed which are impossible to be understood But those who have ever loved to deceive and abuse the rest of the World have been always fond of the Name of Mysteries and therefore all such things are to be suspected which come under that Name For all such Points which will not bear Examination must be wrapt up and Reverenced under the Name of Mysteries that is of things to be swallow'd without being understood But the Scripture never calls that a Mystery which is Incomprehensible in it self though never so much revealed This is the main force of the Objection which I shall endeavour to remove by shewing 1. That God may justly require from us in general the Belief of what we cannot comprehend 2. That which way soever the Way of Salvation by Christ be explained there will be something of that Nature found in it and that those who reject the Mysteries of Faith run into greater Difficulties than those who assert them 3. That no more is required as a Necessary Article of Faith than what is plainly and clearly Revealed 1. That God may justly require from us in general the Belief of what we cannot comprehend It is to very little purpose to enquire whether the Word Mystery in Scripture be applied to such particular Doctrines whose Substance is revealed but the manner of them is incomprehensible by us for why may not we make use of such a Word whereby to express things truely revealed but above our Comprehension We are certain the Word Mystery is used for things far less difficult and abstruse and why may it not then be fitly applied to such matters which are founded on Divine Revelation but yet are too deep for us to go to the bottom of them Are there not Mysteries in Arts Mysteries in Nature Mysteries in Providence And what Absurdity is there to call those Mysteries which in some Measure are known but in much greater unknown to us Although therefore in the Language of Scripture it be granted that the word Mystery is most frequently applied to things before hidden but now revealed yet there is no Incongruity in calling that a Mystery which being revealed hath yet something in it which our understandings cannot reach to But it is meer Cavilling to insist on a Word if the Thing it self be granted The chief thing therefore to be done is to shew that God may require from us the belief of such things which are incomprehensible by us For God may require any thing from us which it is reasonable for us to do if it be then reasonable for us to give Assent where the manner of what God hath revealed is not comprehended then God may certainly require it from us Hath not God revealed to us that in six days he made Heaven and Earth and all that is therein But is it not reasonable for us to believe this unless we are able to comprehend the manner of God's production of things Here we
enquiry I judged to be the most natural and genuine meaning of the Christian Doctrine contained in the Writings of the New Testament I. For finding therein such multitudes of expressions which to an unprejudiced mind attribute all the mighty effects of the Love of God to us to the obedience and sufferings of Christ I began to consider what reason there was why the plain and easie sense of those places must be forsaken and a remote and Metaphorical meaning put upon them Which I thought my self the more obliged to do because I could not conceive if it had been the design of the Scripture to have delivered the received Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning the reason of the sufferings of Christ that it could have been more clearly and fully expressed than it is already So that supposing that to have been the true meaning of the several places of Scripture which we contend for yet the same arts and subtilties might have been used to pervert it which are imployed to perswade men that is not the true meaning of them And what is equally serviceable to truth and falshood can of it self have no power on the minds of men to convince them it must be one and not the other Nay if every unusual and improper acception of words in the Scripture shall be thought sufficient to take away the natural and genuine sense where the matter is capable of it I know scarce any article of Faith can be long secure and by these arts men may declare that they believe the Scriptures and yet believe nothing of the Christian Faith For if the improper though unusual acception of those expressions of Christ's dying for us of redemption propitiation reconciliation by his blood of his bearing our iniquities and being made sin and a curse for us shall be enough to invalidate all the arguments taken from them to prove that which the proper sense of them doth imply why may not the improper use of the terms of Creation and Resurrection as well take away the natural sense of them in the great Articles of the Creation of the world and Resurection after death For if it be enough to prove that Christ's dying for us doth not imply dying in our stead because sometimes dying for others imports no more than dying for some advantage to come to them if redemption being sometimes used for mere deliverance shall make our redemption by Christ wholly Metaphorical if the terms of propitiation reconciliation c. shall lose their force because they are sometimes used where all things cannot be supposed parallel with the sense we contend for why shall I be bound to believe that the World was ever created in a proper sense since those persons against whom I argue so earnestly contend that in those places in which it seems as proper as any it is to be understood only in a metaphorical If when the world and all things are said to be made by Christ we are not to understand the production but the reformation of the World and all things in it although the natural sense of the Words be quite otherwise what argument can make it necessary for me not to understand the Creation of the World in a metaphorical sense when Moses delivers to us the history of it Why may not I understand in the beginning Gen. 1. for the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation as well as Socinus doth in the beginning John 1. for the beginning of the Evangelical and that from the very same argument used by him viz. that in the beginning is to be understood of the main subject concerning which the author intends to write and that I am as sure it was in Moses concerning the Law given by him as it was in St. Iohn concerning the Gospel delivered by Christ. Why may not the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth be no more than the erection of the Jewish Polity since it is acknowledged that by New Heavens and New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness no more is understood than a new state of things under the Gospel Why may not the confused Chaos import no more than the state of Ignorance and Darkness under which the World was before the Law of Moses since it is confessed that it signifies in the New Testament such a state of the World before the Gospel appeared and consequently why may not the light which made the first day be the first tendencies to the Doctrine of Moses which being at first divided and scattered was united afterwards in one great Body of Laws which was called the Sun because it was the great Director of the Iewish Nation and therefore said to rule the day as the less considerable Laws of other Nations are called the Moon because they were to govern those who were yet under the night of Ignorance Why may not the Firmament being in the midst of the Waters imply the erection of the Jewish State in the midst of a great deal of trouble since it is confessed that Waters are often taken in Scripture in a Metaphorical sense for troubles and afflictions and the Earth appearing out of the Waters be no more but the settlement of that State after its troubles and particularly with great elegancy after their passage through the Red Sea And the Production of Herbs and living Creatures be the great encrease of the People of all sorts as well those of a meaner rank and therefore called herbs as those of a higher that were to live upon the other and sometimes trample upon them and therefore by way of excellency called the Living Creatures And when these were multiplied and brought into order which being done by steps and degrees is said to be finished in several days then the State and the Church flourished and enjoyed a great deal of pleasure which was the production of Man and Woman and their being placed in Paradise for a perfect Man notes a high degree of perfection and a Woman is taken for the Church in the Revelations but when they followed the Customs of other Nations which were as a forbidden tree to them then they lost all their happiness and pleasure and were expell'd out of their own Country and lived in great slavery and misery which was the Curse pronounced against them for violating the rules of Policy established among them Thus you see how small a measure of wit by the advantage of those ways of interpreting Scripture which the subtilest of our adversaries make use of will serve to pervert the clearest expressions of Scripture to quite another sense than was ever intended by the Writer of them And I assure you if that rule of interpreting Scripture be once allowed that if words are ever used in a Metaphorical sense there can be no necessity of understanding them any where in a proper there is scarce any thing which you look on as the most necessary to be believed in Scripture but it may be made appear not to be so
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
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
burnt-offering was to make atonement for them as well as the sin and trespass-offerings excepting those sacrifices which were instituted in acknowledgment of God's Sovereignty over them and presence among them as the daily Sacrifices the meat and drink offerings or such as were meerly occasional c. Thus it is said that Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an Atonement for Israel So that as Grotius observes out of Philo The High-Priest was a Mediator between God and man by whom men might propitiate God and God dispense his favours to men But the means whereby he did procure favours to men was by atoning God by the Sacrifices which he was by his Office to offer to him We are now to consider how far this holds in reference to Christ for whose sake the Apostle brings in these words and surely would not have mentioned this as the primary Office of a High-Priest in order to the proving Christ to be our High-Priest after a more excellent manner than the Aaronical was unless he had agreed with him in the nature of his Office and exceeded him in the manner of performance III. For the Apostle both proves that he was a true and proper and not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest and that in such a capacity he very far exceeded the Priests after the Order of Aaron But how could that possibly be if he â—ailed in the primary Office of a High-Priest viz. In offering up gifts and sacrifices to God If his Office as High-Priest did primarily respect men when the Office of the Aaronical Priest did respect God To avoid this Crellius makes these words to be only an allusion to the Legal Priesthood and some kind of similitude between Christ and the Aaronical Priests but it is such a kind of allusion that the Apostle designs to prove Christ to be â—n High-Priest by it and which is of the greatest force he proves the necessity of Christ's having somewhat to offer from hence For every High-Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer This is that which 〈◊〉 looks at as the peculiar and distinguishing character of a High-Priest for 〈◊〉 for others and having compassion upon them might be done by others besides the High-Priest but this was that without which he could not make good his name what order soever he were of Iâ— Christ then had no proper saâ—rifice to offer up to God to what purpose doth the Apostle so industriously set himself to prove that he is our High-Priest when he must needs fail in the main thing according to his own assertion How easie had it been for the Iews to have answered all the Apostles Arguments concerning the Priesthood of Christ if he had been such a Priest and made no other Oblation than Crellius allows him When the Apostle proves against the Iews that there was no necessity that they should still retain the Mosaical Dispensation because now they had a more excellent High-Priest than the Aaronical were and makes use of that character of a High-Priest that he was one taken out from among men in things pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins Well say the Iews we accept of this character but how do you prove concerning Christ that he was such a one Did he offer up a Sacrifice for sin to God upon earth as our High-Priests do No saith Crellius his sufferings were only a preparation for his Priesthood in Heaven But did he then offer up such a Sacrifice to God in Heaven Yes saith Crellius he made an Oblation there But is that Oblation such a Sacrifice to God for sin as our High-Priests offer Yes saith Crellius it may be called so by way of allusion Well then say they you grant that your Iesus is only a High-Priest by way of allusion which was against your first design to prove viz. That he was a true High-Priest and more excellent than ours But suppose it be by way of allusion doth he make any Oblation to God in Heaven or not No saith Crellius really and truly he doth not for all his Office doth respect us but the benefits we enjoy coming originally from the kindness of God you may call it an Oblation to God if you please But how is it possible then say the Iews you can ever convince us that he is any High-Priest or Priest at all much less that he should ever exceed the Aaronical High-Priests in their Office for we are assured that they do offer Sacrifices for sin and that God is atoned by them but if your High-Priest make no atonement for sin he falls far short of ours and therefore we will still hold to our Levitical Priesthood and not forsake that for one barely Metaphorical and having nothing really answering the name of a High-Priest Thus the force of all the Apostles Arguments is plainly taken away by what Crellius and his Brethren assert concerning the Priesthood of Christ. But Crellius thinks to make it good by saying That things that are improper and figurative may be far more excellent than the things that are proper to which they are opposed so that Christ's Priesthood may be far more excellent than the Aaronical although his be only figurative and the other proper But the question is not Whether Christ's Priesthood by any other adventitious considerations as of greater Power and Authority than the Aaronical Priests had may be said to be far more excellent than theirs was but Whether in the notion of Priesthood it doth exceed theirs Which it is impossible to make good unless he had some proper Oblation to make unto God which in it self did far exceed all the Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law IV. But what that oblation of Christ in Heaven was which had any correspondency with the Sacrifices under the Law our Adversaries can never assign nay when they go about it they speak of it in such a manner as makes it very evident they could heartily have wished the Epistle to the Hebrews had said as little of the Priesthood of Christ as they say any other part of the New Testament doth Thence Smalcius and Crellius insist so much upon the Priesthood of Christ being distinctly mentioned by none but the Author to the Hebrews which say they had surely been done if Christ had been a proper Priest or that Office in him distinct from his Kingly Which sufficiently discovers what they would be at viz. That the Testimony of the Author to the Hebrews is but a single Testimony in this matter and in truth they do as far as is consistent with not doing it in express words wholly take away the Priesthood of Christ For what is there which they say his Priesthood implies which he might not have had supposing he had never been called a Priest His being in Heaven doth not imply that he is a Priest unless it be impossible
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
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
him he tells them That he was made like to his Brethren and therefore they need not doubt but by the sense which he had of the infirmities of humane nature he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people which is all the Apostle means by those expressions So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth but only assert the excellency and the continuance of it in Heaven Which latter we are as far from denying as our Adversaries are from granting the former And thus much may suffice for the second thing to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it CHAP. VI. I. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ which either respect the sin or the person Of the true notion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined II. Crellius his Objections answered III. The Iews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated merely as a slight part of obedience IV. God's expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice V. The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices VI. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices VII And from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be merely declarative If it had been so it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death VIII The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture IX And because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven X. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christ's entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God XI The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice respecting the person belong to the death of Christ which are Atonement and Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XII The Reconciliation by Christ's death doth not merely respect us but God why the latter less used in the New Testament A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture Crellius his evasion answered XIII The Objections from God's being reconciled in the sending his Son XIV And the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered and the whole concluded I. THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice is That the effects of a proper Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it Which do either respect the sins committed and are then called Expiation and Remission or the persons who were guilty of them as they stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to the death of Christ and are attributed to it as the procuring cause of them and not as a bare condition of Christ's entrance into Heaven or as comprehending in it the consequents of it I bâ—gin with the Expiation and Remission of sins as to which Socinus doth acknowledge That the great correspondency doth lie between Christ's and the Legal Sacrifices We are therefore to enquire 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood and in what respect it is attributed to them For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set forth by which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the Expiation made by a Sacrifice We shall begin with the former because Crellius objects this against Grotius That he imployed his greatest diligence in the explication of the Greek and Latin words for Expiation of sin and was contented only to say that the Hebrew words would bear the same signification Whereas saith he he ought to have proved that the Hebrew words do require that sense which he takes them in But by Crellius his leave Grotius took the best course was to be taken in words whose signification is so obscure as those are in the Hebrew Language For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so very rarely used in Scripture in that which Socinus and Crellius contend to be the proper and natural signification of it viz. To hide or cover and so frequently in the sense of Expiation what better way could be taken for determining the sense of it as applied to Sacrifices than by insisting upon those words which are used in the New Testament to the very same purpose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the Old For they cannot pretend that which they say is the most proper sense can be applied to this subject viz. To cover with pitch or a bituminous matter which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 6.14 therefore it must of necessity be taken in another sense here But Socinus contends That it ought to be taken in a sense most agreeable to that which is saith he that the Expiation of sin be nothing else but the covering of it by God's grace and benignity Thence saith he David saith Blessed is the man whose iniquity is covered But how can this prove that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to sin is covered by God's Grace when neither the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used nor is there any respect at all mentioned of an Expiation by Sacrifice which is the thing we are discoursing of And is the covering of sin such an easie and intelligible phrase that this should be made choice of to explain the difficulty of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by What is it that they would have us understand by the covering sin surely not to make it stronger and more lasting as the Ark was covered with that bituminous matter for that end and yet this would come the nearest to the proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that from their own interpretation it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to the expiation of sin by Sacrifices cannot be taken so much as in allusion to that other sense for their sense of Expiation is either by the destruction of sin or deliverance of the sinner from the punishment of it but what resemblance is there between the covering of a thing in order to its preservation and the making
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
Examination of them I. Which is most agreeable to the Revealed Will of God II. Which doth offer fairest for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind I. Which is most agreeable to the revealed Will of God For that we are sure is the most faithfull saying since Men of Wit and Reason may deceive us but God cannot When the Apostles first preached this Doctrine to the World they were not bound to believe what they affirmed to be a faithfull saying till they gave sufficient Evidence of their Authority from God by the wonderfull Assistance of the Holy Ghost But now this faithfull saying is contained in the Books of the New Testament by which we are to judge of the Truth of all Christian Doctrines And when two different Senses of Places of Scripture are offer'd we are to consider which is most Reasonable to be preferr'd And herein we are allow'd to Exercise our Reason as much as we please and the more we do so the sooner we shall come to Satisfaction in this matter Now according to Reason we may judge that Sense to be preferr'd 1. Which is most plain and easie and agreeable to the most receiv'd Sense of Words not that which is forced and intricate or which puts improper and metaphorical Senses upon Words which are commonly taken in other Senses especially when it is no Sacramental thing which in its own Nature is Figurative 2. That which suits most with the Scope and Design not only of the particular Places but of the whole New Testament which is to magnifie God and to depress Man to set forth the Infinite Love and Condescension of God in giving his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins to set up the Worship of one true God in Opposition to Creatures to Represent and Declare the mighty Advantages Mankind receive by the Sufferings of Christ Iesus 3. That which hath been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church to be the Sense of those places For we are certain this was always look'd on as a matter of great Concernment to all Christians and they had as great Capacity of understanding the Sense of the Apostles and the Primitive Church had greater Helps for knowing it than others at so much greater Distance And therefore the Sense is not to be taken from modern Inventions or Criticisms or pretences to Revelation but that which was at first deliver'd to the Christian Church and hath been since received and embraced by it in the several Ages and hath been most strenuously asserted when it hath met with Opposition as founded on Scripture and the general Consent of the Christian Church 4. That which best agrees with the Characters of those Persons from whom we recive the Christian Faith and those are Christ Iesus and his holy Apostles For if their Authority be lost our Religion is gone and their Authority depends upon their Sincerity and Faithfulness and Care to inform the World aright in matters of so great Importance 1. I begin with the Character which the Apostles give of Christ Iesus himself which is that he was a Person of the greatest Humility and Condescension that he did not assume to himself that which he might justly have done For let the Words of S. Paul be understood either as to the Nature or Dignity of Christ it is certain that they must imply thus much that when Christ Iesus was here on Earth he was not of a vain assuming humour that he did not boast of himself nor magnifie his own Greatness but was contented to be look'd on as other Men although he had at that time far greater and Diviner Excellency in him than the World would believe Less than this cannot be made of those Words of the Apostle Who being in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Now this being the Character given of him let us consider what he doth affirm concerning himself For although he was far from drawing the People after him by setting forth his own Perfections yet upon just Occasions when the Iews contested with him he did Assert such things which must savour of Vanity and Ostentation or else must imply that he was the Eternal Son of God For all Mankind are agreed that the highest degree of Ambition lies in Affecting Divine Honour or for a meer Man to be thought a God How severely did God punish Herod for being pleased with the Peoples folly in crying out the Voice of God and not of Man And therefore he could never have born with such positive Assertions and such repeated Defences of his being the Son of God in such a manner as implied his being so from Eternity This in his Disputes with the Iews he affirms several times that he came down from Heaven not in a Metaphorical but in a proper Sense as appears by those words What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before In another Conference he asserted that he was before Abraham Which the Iews so literally understood that without a Metaphor they went about to stone him little imagining that by Abraham the calling of the Gentiles was to be understood But above all is that Expression which he used to the Iews at another Conference I and my Father are one which they understood in such a manner that immediately they took up stones to have stoned him What means all this Rage of the Iews against him What for saying that he had Vnity of Consent with his Father No certainly But the Iews misunderstood him Let us suppose it would not our Saviour have immediately explained himself to prevent so dangerous a Misconstruction But he asked them what it was they stoned him for They answer him directly and plainly because that thou being a man makest thy self God This was home to the purpose And here was the time for him to have denied it if it had not been so But doth he deny it Doth he say it would be Blasphemy in him to own it No but he goes about to defend it and proves it to be no Blasphemy for him to say that he was the Son of God i. e. so as to be God as the Iews understood it Can we imagine that a meer Man knowing himself to be such should Assume this to himself and yet God to bear witness to him not only by Miracles but by a Voice from Heaven wherein he was called his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased Could God be pleased with a mortal finite despicable Creature as the Iews thought him that assumed to himself to be God and maintained and defended it among his own People in a solemn Conference at a very Publick Place in one of the Portico's of the Temple And this he persisted in to the last For when the High Priest adjured him by the living God to tell whether he