all the promise of expiation was not upon his bare entrance into it but upon the blood which he carried along with him and sprinkled there In correspondency to which our Saviour is not barely said to enter into Heaven and present himself to God but that he did this by his own blood having obtained Eternal Redemption for 〈◊〉 3. We observe That there was somâ—thing correspondent in the death of Chrisâ—… to somewhat consequent to the oblatioâ—… under the Law and therefore there câ—… be no reason to suppose that the oblatioâ—… of Christ must be consequent to his death for that destroys the correspondency between them Now this appears in thiâ— particular in the solemn sacrifices for sinâ—… after the sprinkling of the blood which waâ— carried into the Holy place to reconcile with all all the remainder of the Sacrifice waâ— to be burnt without the Camp and this held on the day of Atonement as well as in other Sin-offerings for the Congregation Now the Author to the Hebrews tells us That in correspondency to this Jesus that hâ—… might sanctifie the people with his own blood suffered without the gate What force iâ— there in this unless the blood of Christ did answer to the Sin-offerings for the people and his oblation was supposed to be made before and therefore that he might have all things agreeable to those Sin-offerings the last part was to be compleated too viz. That he was to suffer without the gate which after the peoples settlement in Jerusalem answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness 4. We observe That the Oblation in Exâ—iatory Sacrifices under the Law by the Priest had always relation to the consumption of what was offered Thus the offering of â—he blood in token of the destruction of the â—…ife of the beast whose blood was offered for no blood was to be offered of a living creature nor of one kill'd upon any other account but for that end to be a sacrifice for sin and after the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood the inwards of some and all of the other were to be consumed by fire And it is observable that the greater the Sacrifice for sin was always the more was consumed of it as appears plainly by the forementioned difference of the Sin-offerings for private persons and for the people of the former the Priests were allowed to eat but not at all of the latter And so it was observed among the Egyptians in the most solemn Sacrifices for expiation nothing was allowed to be eaten of that part which was designed for that end For Herodotus gives us an account why the Egyptians never eat the head of any living Creature which is That when they offer up a sacrifice they make a solemn execration upon it that if any evil were to fall upon the the persons who sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be turned upon the head of that beast And Plutarch addes that after this soleâ—… execration They cut off thâ— head and of old threw it iâ—to the River but then gâ—… 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 Christs 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 suffer'd for sins and offer'd up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Gods as themselves acknowledge and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be call'd Christs 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 suffer'd 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 Christs 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 〈◊〉 Cross So that the entrance of Christ inâ—â— Heaven could not be the
they might seem to others to see when they know themselves they do not Nay there is nothing so plain and evident but the reason of some men is more apt to be imposed upon in it than their senses are as it appeared in him who could not otherwise confute the Philosophers argument against motion but by moving before him So that we see the most certain things in the world are lyable to the cavils of men who imploy their wits to do it and certainly those ought not to stagger mens faith in matters of the highest nature and consequence which would not at all move them in other things But at last it is acknowledged by the men who love to be called the men of wit in this Age of ours that there is a God and Providence a future state and the differences of good and evil but the Christian Religion they will see no further reason to embrace than as it is the Religion of the State they live in But if we demand what mighty reasons they are able to bring forth against a Religion so holy and innocent in its design so agreeable to the Nature of God and Man so well contrived for the advantages of this and another life so fully attested to come from God by the Miracles wrought in confirmation of it by the death of the Son of God and of such multitudes of Martyrs so certainly conveyed to us by the unquestionable Tradition of all Ages since the first delivery of it the utmost they can pretend against it is that it is built upon such an appearance of the Son of God which was too mean and contemptible that the Doctrine of it is incosistent with the Civil Interests of men and the design ineffectual for the Reformation of the World For the removal therefore of these cavils against our Religion I shall shew 1. That there were no circumstances in our Saviours appearance or course of life which were unbecoming the Son of God and the design he came upon 2. That the Doctrine delivered by him is so far from being contrary to the Civil Interests of the World that it tends highly to the preservation of them 3. That the design he came upon was very agreeable to the Infinite Wisdom of God and most effectual for the reformation of Mankinde For clearing the first of these I shall consider 1. The Manner of our Saviours appearance 2. The Course of his Life and what it was which his enemies did most object against him 1. The Manner of our Saviours Appearance which hath been alwayes the great offence to the admirers of the pomp and greatness of the World For when they heard of the Son of God coming down from Heaven and making his Progress into this lower world they could imagine nothing less than that an innumerable company of Angels must have been dispatched before to have prepared a place for his reception that all the Soveraigns and Princes of the World must have been summon'd to give their attendance and pay their homage to him that their Scepters must have been immediately laid at his feet and all the Kingdoms of the earth been united into one universal Monarchy under the Empire of the Son of God That the Heavens should how down at his presence to shew their obeysance to him the Earth tremble and shake for fear at the near approaches of his Majesty that all the Clouds should clap together into one universal Thunder to welcome his appearance and tell the Inhabitants of the World what cause they had to fear him whom the Powers of the Heavens obey that the Sea should run out of its wonted course with amazement and horror and if it were possible hide it self in the hollow places of the earth that the Mountains should shrink in their heads to fill up the vast places of the deep so that all that should be fulfilled in a literal sense which was foretold of the comeing of the Messias That every Valley should be filled and every Mountain and Hill brought low the crooked made straight and the rough wayes smooth and all flesh see the salvation of God Yea that the Sun for a time should be darken'd and the Moon withdraw her light to let the Nations of the Earth understand that a Glory infinitely greater than theirs did now appear to the World In a word they could not imagine the Son of God could be born without the pangs and throws of the whole Creation that it was as impossible for him to appear as for the Sun in the Firmament to disappear without the notice of the whole World But when instead of all this pomp and grandeur he comes incognito into the World instead of giving notice of his appearance to the Potentates of the Earth he is only discovered to a few silly Shepheards and three wise men of the East instead of choosing either Rome or Hierusalem for the place of his Nativity he is born at Bethleem a mean and obscure Village instead of the glorious and magnificent Palaces of the East or West which were at that time so famous he is brought forth in a Stable where the Manger was his Cradle and his Mother the only attendant about him who was her self none of the great persons of the Court nor of any fame in the Countrey but was only rich in her Genealogy and honourable in her Pedigree And according to the obscurity of his Birth was his Education too his youth was not spent in the Imperial Court at Rome nor in the Schools of Philosophers at Athens nor at the feet of the great Rabbies at Jerusalem but at Nazareth a place of mean esteem among the Jews where he was remarkable for nothing so much as the Vertues proper to his Age Modesty Humility and Obedience All which he exercises to so high a degree that his greatest Kindred and acquaintance were mightily surprized when at 30 years of age he began to discover himself by the Miracles which he wrought and the Authority which he spake with And although the rayes of his Divinity began to break forth through the Clouds he had hitherto disguised himself in yet he persisted still in the same course of humility and self-denyal taking care of others to the neglect of himself feeding others by a Miracle and fasting himself to one shewing his power in working miraculous Cures and his humility in concealing them Conversing with the meanest of the people and choosing such for his Apostles who brought nothing to recommend them but innocency and simplicity Who by their heats and ignorance were continual exercises of his Patience in bearing with them and of his care and tenderness in instructing them And after a life thus led with such unparallel'd humility when he could adde nothing more to it by his actions he doth it by his sufferings and compleats the sad Tragedy of his Life by a most shamefull and ignominious Death This is the short and true account of all those things
of bliss and immortality and to change the Lamps of the Temple for the glorious appearance of the Sun of Righteousness Was it nothing to have an offer of Peace and Reconciliation with God made them after they had suffer'd so much under the fury of his displeasure Was a meer temporal deliverance by some mighty Conquerour from the subjection they were in to the Roman Power so much more valuable a thing than an eternal redemption from the powers of Hell and the Grave Are the pomps and vanities of this present life such great things in Gods account that it was not possible for his Son to appear without them Nay how unsuitable had it been for one who came to preach humility patience self-denyall and contempt of the world to have made an ostentation of the State and Grandeur of it So that either he must have changed his Doctrine or rendred himself lyable to the suspicion of seeking to get this world by the preaching of another And if his Doctrine had been of another kinde he might have been esteemed a great person among the Jews but not the Son of God or the promised Messias in whom all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Which surely they would never have thought themselves to have been in one who must have subdued the neighbour Nations to advance the honour of his own But since the Son of God thought fit to appear in another manner than they expected him they thought themselves too great to be saved by so mean a Saviour If he had made all the Kingdoms of the Earth to have bowed under him and the Nations about them to have been all tributaries to them if Jerusalem had been made the Seat of an Empire as great as the World it self they would then have gloried in his Name and entertained whatever he had said whether true or false with a wonderfull Veneration But Truth in an humble dress meets with few admirers they could not imagine so much Power and Majesty could ever shroud it self under so plain a disguise Thus Christ came to his own and his own received him not Yea those that should have known him the best of all others those who frequently conversed with him and heard him speak as never man spake and saw him do what never man did were yet so blinded by the meanness of his Parentage and Education that they baffle their own Reason and persist in their Infidelity because they knew the place and manner of his breeding the names of his Mother and his Brethren and Sisters are they not all with us whence then hath this man all these things As though Is not this the Carpenters Son had been sufficient answer to all he could say or do 2. The disparagement of his Miracles Since the bare proposal of his Doctrine though never so reasonable could not prevail with them to believe him to be the Son of God he offers them a further proof of it by the mighty works which were wrought by him And though the more ingenuous among them were ready to acknowledge that no man could do the things which he did unless God were with him yet they who were resolved to hear and see and not understand when they found it not for their credit to deny matters of fact so universally known and attested they seek all the means to blast the reputation of them that may be Sometimes raising popular insinuations against him that he was a man of no austere life a friend of Publicans and sinners one that could choose no other day to do his works on but that very day wherein God himself did rest from his and therefore no great regard was to be had to what such a one did When these arts would not take but the people found the benefit of his Miracles in healing the sick curing the blinde and the lame feeding the hungry then they undervalue all these in comparison with the wonders that were wrought by Moses in the Wilderness If he would have made the Earth to open her mouth and swallow up the City and the power of Rome if he would have fed a mighty Army with bread from Heaven in stead of feeding some few thousands with very small Provisions if in stead of raising one Lazarus from the Grave he would have raised up their Sampsons and their Davids their men of spirit and conduct whose very presence would have put a new life into the hearts of the people if in stead of casting out Devils he would have cast out the Romans whom they hated the worse of the two if he would have set himself to the cure of a distempered State instead of healing the maladies of some few inconsiderable persons if instead of being at the expense of a Miracle to pay tribute he would have hinder'd them from paying any at all then a Second Moses would have been too mean a title for him he could have been no less than the promised Messias the Son of God But while he imploy'd his power another way the demonstration of it made them hate him the more since they thought with themselves what strange things they would have done with it for the benefit of their Countrey and therefore express the greatest malice against him because he would not imploy it as they would have him From thence they condemn his Miracles as only some effects of a Magical skill and say he dispossessed the lesser Devils by the power of him that was the Prince among them So unworthy a requital did they make for all the mighty works which had been done among them Which as our Saviour saith if they had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented long ago in sack-cloth and ashes 3. But although all this argued a strange spirit of contradiction in them to all the designs for their own good yet the malice from whence that rose would not stop here for as they had long contrived his ruine so they watched only an opportunity to effect it Which his frequent presence at Jerusalem seemed to put into their hands but his reputation with the people made them fearfull of embracing it Therefore they imploy their Agents to deal privately with one of his Disciples who might be fittest for their design and to work upon his covetous humour by the promise of a reward to bring him to betray his Master with the greatest privacy into their hands This Judas undertakes knowing the place and season of his Masters retirements not far from the City where they might with the greatest secrecy and safety seize upon his person Which contrivance of theirs our Saviour was not at all ignorant of but prepares himself and his Disciples for this great encounter He institutes his solemn Supper to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his death and sufferings after which he discourses admirably with his Disciples to arm them against their future sufferings and prays that most divine Prayer S. John 17. which
means of obtaining that power which was conferred before but the death of Christ is mention'd 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 â—â—n-offering which he carried in with him â—f there were then no Expiatory Sacrifice before that was slain for the sins of men Christ could not be said to make any Oblaâ—ion in Heaven for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain so that â—f men deny that Christs death was a proâ—er Sacrifice for sin he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven and Christ â—ould not be said to enter thither as â—he High-Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacriâ—â—ce which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ. 2. There is as great an inconsistency iâ— making the exercise of Christs power iâ— Heaven an Oblation in any sense as in making Christs entrance into Heaven to 〈◊〉 the Oblation which had correspondeâ—â—â— 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 noâ— for his intercession and power Crellius saith respects us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the meer exercise of power should be call'd 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 offer'd up to God so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must arguâ—… upon strange similitudes and fancy resemblances to himself which it was impossible for the Jews to understand him in who were to judge of the nature of Priesthooâ— and Oblations in a way agreeable to tâ—â— Institutions among themselves But wasâ—… possible for them to understand such Oblâ—tions and a Priesthood which had no respecâ— at all to God but wholly to the People and such an Holiesâ—ithout â—ithout the blood of an Sacrificeâ—or â—or the sins of the people But such absâ—â—dities do men betray themselves into when they are forced to strain express plaâ—es of Scripture to serve an hypothesis which they think themselves obliged to â—â—intain We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mention'd which will easily appear by these brief considerations 1. That the apostle alwayes speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done so as not 〈◊〉 be done again which had been very improper if by the Oblation of Christ he had 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 foot-stool 2. That he â—…ill speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Jews and â—herefore the Oblation of Christ must be 〈◊〉 such a way as was agreeable to what â—as used in the Levitical Sacrifices which â—e have already at large proved he could â—ot do in our Adversaries sense 3. That â—â—e 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 offer'd 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 call'd 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 Christs sufferings must have been repeated too For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but the repeated exercise of Christs power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christs 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 whâ—â— 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 â—…ed and the Levitical Law was observed although not sufficient for perfect expiation and so rejected for that end and withall he speaks of that World wherein the chearfull 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 he 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 But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews that Christs entrance into Heaven was necessary to his being a perfect High-Priest for he was to be made higher then the heavens and if he were on earth he should not be a Priest but he was a Priest after the power of an eâ—â—lless 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 onely to qualifie 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
have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture The importance of the phrase of bearing sins Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it Crellius his sense examined Isa. 53. 11. vindicated The Argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place Isa. 53. 5 6 7. cleared Whether Christs death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin How far the punishments of Children for their Fathers faults are exemplary among men The distinction of calamities and punishments holds not here That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ unless they were a punishment of sin proved against Crellius Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us defended The liberty our Adversaries take in changing the sense of words The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin According to their way of interpreting Scripture it had been impossible for our Doctrine to be clearly expressed therein p. 314 CHAP. III. The words of Scripture being at last acknowledged by our Adversaries to make for us the only pretence remaining is that our Doctrine is repugnant to reason The debate managed upon point of reason The grand difficulty enquired into and manifested by our Adversaries concessions not to lye in the greatness of Christs sufferings or that our sins were the impulsive cause of them or that it is impossible that one should be punished for anothers faults or in all cases unjust the cases wherein Crellius allows it instanced From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause The Arguments propounded whereby he attempts to prove it unjust for Christ to be punished for our sins Crellius his principles of the justice of punishments examined Of the relation between desert and punishment That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions An answer to Crellius his Objections What it is to suffer undeservedly Crellius his mistake in the state of the question The instances of Scripture considered In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins Ezek. 18. 20. explained at large Whether the guilty being freed by the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no Crellins his shifts and evasions in this matter discovered Why among men the offenders are not freed in criminal matters though the sureties be punished The release of the party depends on the terms of the Sureties suffering therefore deliverance not ipso facto No necessity of such a translation in criminal as is in pecuniary matters p. 378 CHAP. IV. The Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law twofold Civil and Ritual The Promises made to the Jews under the Law of Moses respected them as a People and therefore must be temporal The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted A substitution in the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law proved from Lev. 17. 11. and the Concession of Crellius about the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levitic 10. 17. explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christs being said to dye for us the importance of that phrase considered In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us Our Redemption by Christ proves a Substitution Of the true notion of Redemption that explained and proved against Socinus and Crellius No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive where the captivity is not by force but by sentence of Law Christs death a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to it cannot be taken for meer deliverance p. 419 CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed 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 Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal power No proper Expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true 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 His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of Sacrifices proposed What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation The High-Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day oâ— Atonement from whence it is proved thaâ— Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a sacrifice proved by the Jewish Laws and the Customs of other Nations Whether Christs 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 All things necessary to a Legal Oblation concur in the death of Christ. 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 Christs exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute Objections answered p. 450 CHAP. VI. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices â—elong to the death of Christ which either â—espect the sin or the person Of the true â—otion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined Crellius his Objections answered The Jews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience Gods expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices and from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be meerly declarative If it had been so it
upon their dwellings O what cryes and lamentations what yellings and shriekings might ye then have heard among them We may well think how dreadful those were when we do but consider how sad the circumstances were of the Fire we mourn for this day When it began like Sampson to break in pieces all the means of resisting it and carried before it not only the Gates but the Churches and most magnificent structures of the City what horrour and confusion may we then imagine had seized upon the spirits of the Citizens what distraction in their councils what paleness in their countenances what pantings at their hearts what an universal consternation might have been then seen upon the minds of men But O the sighs and tears the frights and amazements the miscarriages nay the deaths of some of the weaker Sex at the terrour and apprehension of it O the hurry and useless pains the alarms and tumults the mutual hinderances of each other that were among men at the beholding the rage and fury of it There we might have seen Women weeping for their children for fear of their being trod down in the press or lost in the crowd of people or exposed to the violence of the flames Husbands more solicitous for the safety of their Wives and Children than their own the Souldiers running to their Swords when there was more need of Buckets the Tradesmen loading their backs with that which had gotten possession of their hearts before Then we might have heard some complaining thus of themselves O that I had been as carefull of laying up treasures in Heaven as I have been upon Earth I had not been under such fears of losing them as now I am If I had served God as faithfully as I have done the world he would never have left me as now that is like to do What a fool have I been which have spent all my precious time for the gaining of that which may be now lost in an hours time If these flames be so dreadful what are those which are reserved for them who love the world more than God! If none can come near the heat of this Fire who can dwell with everlasting burnings O what madness then will it be to sin any more wilfully against that God who is a consuming fire infinitely more dreadful than this can be Farewell then all ye deceitful vanities now I understand thee and my self better O bewitching world then to fix my happiness in thee any more I will henceforth learn so much wisdom to lay up my treasures there where neither moths can corrupt them nor Thieves steal them nor Fire consume them O how happy would London be if this were the effect of her flames on the minds of all her inhabitants She might then rise with a greater glory and her inward beauty would outshine her outward splendour let it be as great as we can wish or imagine But in the mean time who can behold her present ruines without paying some tears as due to the sadness of the spectacle and more to the sins which caused them If that City were able to speak out of its ruines what sad complaints would it make of all those impieties which have made her so miserable If it had not been might she say for the pride and luxury the ease and delicacy of some of my inhabitants the covetousness the fraud the injustice of others the debaucheries of the prophane the open factions and secret hypocrisie of too many pretending to greater sanctity my beauty had not been thus turned into ashes nor my glory into those ruines which make my enemies rejoyce my friends to mourn and all stand amazed at the beholding of them Look now upon me you who so lately admired the greatness of my Trade the riches of my Merchants the number of my people the conveniency of my Churches the multitude of my Streets and see what desolations sin hath made in the earth Look upon me and then tell me whether it be nothing to dally with Heaven to make a mock at sin to slight the judgements of God and abuse his mercies and after all the attempts of Heaven to reclaim a people from their sins to remain still the same that ever they were Was there no way to expiate your guilt but by my misery Had the Leprosie of your sins so fretted into my Walls that there was no cleansing them but by the slames which consume them Must I mourn in my dust and ashes for your iniquities while you are so ready to return to the practice of them Have I suffered so much by reason of them and do you think to escape your selves Can you then look upon my ruines with hearts as hard and unconcerned as the stones which lye in them If you have any kindness for me or for your selves if you ever hope to see my breaches repaired my beauty restored my glory advanced look on Londons ruines and repent Thus would she bid her inhabitants not weep for her miseries but for their own sins for if never any sorrow were like to her sorrow it is because never any sins were like to their sins Not as though they were only the sins of the City which have brought this evil upon her no but as far as the judgement reaches so great hath the compass of the sins been which have provoked God to make her an example of his justice And I fear the effects of Londons calamity will be felt all the Nation over For considering the present languishing condition of this Nation it will be no easie matter to recover the blood and spirits which have been lost by this Fire So that whether we consider the sadness of those circumstances which accompanied the rage of the fire or those which respect the present miseries of the City or the general influence those will have upon the Nation we cannot easily conceive what judgement could in so critical a time have befallen us which had been more severe for the kind and Nature of it than this hath been 2. We consider it in the series and order of it We see by the Text this comes in the last place as a reserve when nothing else would do any good upon them It is extrema medicina as St. Hierom saith the last attempt that God uses to reclaim a people by and if these Causticks will not do it is to be feared he looks on the wounds as incurable He had sent a famine before v. 6. a drought v. 7 8. blasting and mildew v. 9. the Pestilence after the manner of Egypt v. 10. the miseries of War in the same verse And when none of these would work that effect upon them which they were designed for â—hen he comes to this last way of punishing before a final destruction he overthrew some of their Cities as he had overthrown Sodom â—nd Gomorrah God forbid we should be so near a final subversion and utter desolation as the ten Tribes were when none of
willing to attain the end by the means which God affordeth and by justifying not only the bare approving it but the declaring of that approbation to the World by a just vindication of it from the cavils and exceptions of men Although the words are capable of various senses yet this is the most natural and agreeable to the scope of what goes before For there our Saviour speaks of the different wayes wherein John Baptist and himself appeared among the Jews in order to the same end v. 32. For John Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine and ye say he hath a Devil A very severe Devil surely and one of the strictest orders among them that was so far from being cast out by fasting and prayer that these were his continual imployment But what could we have sooner thought than that those persons who made the Devil the author of so much mortification and severity of life should presently have entertained Religion in a more free and pleasing humour but this would not take neither for the Son of Man comes eating and drinking i. 〈◊〉 was remarkable for none of those rigouâ—… and austerities which they condemned iâ—… John and applauded in the Pharisees and then presently they censure him as a gluttonous man and a Wine-bibber a friend 〈◊〉 Publicans and sinners v. 34. i. e. the utmosâ—… excess that any course of life was capablâ— of they presently apply to those who had no other design in all their actions than to recommend true piety and goodness to them So impossible it was by any means which the wisdom of Heaven thought fit to use to perswade them into any good opinion of the persons who brought the glad tidings of salvation to them and therefore our Saviour when he sees how refractory and perverse they were in interpreting every thing to the worse and censuring the wayes which infinite Wisdom thought fittest to reclaim them by he tells them that it was nothing but malice and obstinacy which was the cause of it but if they were men of teachable spirits who by an usual Hebraisme are called the Children of Wisdom they would see reason enough to admire approve and justifie all the methods of divine Providence for the good of Mankind For Wisdom is justified of all her Children That which I mainly design to speak to from hence is That although the wisest Contrivances of Heaven for the good of Mankind are lyable to the unjust cavils and exceptions of unreasonable men yet there is enough to satisfie any teachable and ingenuous Minds concerning the wisdom of them Before I come more particularly to examine those which concern our present subject viz. the life and appearance of our Lord and Saviour it will take very much off from the force of them if we consider that thus it hath alwayes been and supposing humane nature to be as it is it is scarce conceivable that it should be otherwise Not that it is necessary or reasonable it should be so at all any more than it is necessary that men should act foolishly or inconsiderately but as long as we must never expect to see all men either wise or pious either to have a true judgement of things or a love of Religion so long we shall alwayes find there will be some who will be quarrelling with Religion when they have no minde to practise it I speak not now of those who make a meer jest and scoff at Religion of which our Age hath so many Instances but of a sort of men who are of a degree above the other though farr enough short of any true and solid wisdom who yet are the more to be considered because they seem to make a slender offer at reason in what they say Some pretend they are not only unsatisfied with the particular wayes of instituted Religion any further than they are subservient to their present interest which is the only God they worship but to make all sure the foundations even of Natural Religion it self cannot escape their cavils and exceptions They have found out an Index Expurgatorius for those impressions of a Deity which are in the hearts of men and use their utmost arts to obscure since they cannot extinguish those lively characters of the power wisdom and goodness of God which are every where to be seen in the large volume of the Creation Religion is no more to them but an unaccountable fear and the very notion of a spiritual substance even of that without which we could never know what a contradiction meant is said to imply one But if for quietness sake and it may be to content their own minds as well as the World they are willing to admit of a Deity which is a mighty concession from those who have so much cause to be afraid of him then to ease their minds of such troublesom companions as their fears are they seek by all means to dispossess him of his Government of the World by denying his Providence and care of humane affairs They are contented he should be cal'd an excellent Being that should do nothing and therefore signifie nothing in the World or rather then he might be styled an Almighty Sardanapalus that is so fond of ease and pleasure that the least thought of business would quite spoyl his happiness Or if the activity of their own spirits may make them think that such an excellent Being may sometimes draw the Curtains and look abroad into the World then every advantage which another hath got above them and every cross accident which befals themselves which by the power of self-flattery most men have learnt to call the Prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of good men serve them for mighty charges against the justice of divine Providence Thus either God shall not govern the World at all or if he do it must be upon such terms as they please and approve of or else they will erect an High Court of Justice upon him and condemn the Sovereign of the World because he could not please his discontented subjects And as if he were indeed arraign'd at such a barr every weak and peevish exception shall be cryed up for evidence when the fullest and clearest vindications of him shall be scorn'd and contemned But this doth not in the least argue the obnoxiousness of him who is so accused but the great injustice of those who dare pass sentence where it is neither in their power to understand the reason of his actions nor if it were to call him in question for his proceedings with men But so great is the pride and arrogance of humane Nature that it loves to be condemning what it cannot comprehend and there needs be no greater reason given concerning the many disputes in the world about Divine Providence than that God is wise and we are not but would fain seem to be so While men are in the dark they will be alwayes quarrelling and those who contend the most do it that
things we are to consider concerning the contradiction of sinners which Christ endured against himself Nothing now remains but the influence that ought to have upon us lest we be weary and faint in our minds For which end I shall suggest two things 1. The vast disproportion between Christs sufferings and ours 2. The great encouragement we have from his sufferings to bear our own the better 1. The vast Disproportion between Christs sufferings and our own Our lot is fallen into suffering times and we are apt enough to complain of it I will not say it is wholly true of us what the Moralist saith generally of the complaints of men Non quia dura sed quia molles patimur that it is not the hardness of our conditions so much as the softness of our spirits which makes us complain of them For I must needs say this City hath smarted by such a series and succession of judgements which few Cities in the world could parallel in so short a time The Plague hath emptied its houses and the fire consumed them the War exhausted our spirits and it were well if Peace recovered them But still these are but the common calamities of humane nature things that we ought to make account of in the World and to grow the better by them And it were happy for this City if our thankfulness and obedience were but answerable to the mercies we yet enjoy let us not make our condition worse by our fears nor our fears greater than they need to be for no enemy can be so bad as they Thanks be to God our condition is much better at present than it hath been let us not make it worse by fearing it may be so Complaints will never end till the World does and we may imagine that will not last much longer when the City thinks it hath trade enough and the Countrey riches enough But I will not go about to perswade you that your condition is better than it is for I know it is to no purpose to do so all men will believe as they feel But suppose our condition were much worse than it is yet what were all our sufferings compared with those of our Saviour for us the sins that make us smart wounded him much deeper they pierced his side which only touch our skin we have no cause to complain of the bitterness of that Cup which he hath drunk off the dreggs of already We lament over the ruins of a City and are revived with any hopes of seeing it rise out of the dust but Christ saw the ruins that sin caused in all mankind he undertook the repairing them and putting men into a better condition than before And we may easily think what a difficult task he had of it when he came to restore them who were delighted in their ruins and thought themselves too good to be mended It is the comfort of our miseries if they be only in this life that we know they cannot last long but that is the great aggravation of our Saviours sufferings that the contradiction of sinners continues against him still Witness the Atheisme I cannot so properly call it as the Antichristianism of this present Age wherein so many profane persons act over again the part of the Scribes and Pharisees they slight his Doctrine despise his Person disparage his Miracles contemn his Precepts and undervalue his Sufferings Men live as if it were in defiance to his holy Laws as though they feared not what God can do so much as to need a Mediator between him and them If ever men tread under foot the Son of God it is when they think themselves to be above the need of him if ever they count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing it is not only when they do not value it as they ought but when they exercise their profane wits upon it Blessed Saviour was it not enough for thee to bear the contradiction of sinners upon Earth but thou must still suffer so much at the hands of those whom thou dyedst for that thou mightest bring them to Heaven was it not enough for thee to be betrayed on Earth but thou must be defied in Heaven Was it not enough for thee to stoop so low for our sakes but that thou shouldest be trampled on because thou didst it was the ignominious death upon the Cross too small a thing for thee to suffer in thy Person unless thy Religion be contemned and exposed to as much shame and mockery as thy self was Unhappy we that live to hear of such things but much more unhappy if any of our sins have been the occasion of them If our unsuitable lives to the Gospel have open'd the mouths of any against so excellent a Religion If any malice and revenge any humour and peevishness any pride or hypocrisie any sensuality and voluptuousness any injustice or too much love of gain have made others despise that Religion which so many pretend to and so few practise If we have been in any measure guilty of this as we love our Religion and the honour of our Saviour let us endeavour by the holiness and meekness of our spirits the temperance and justice of our actions the patience and contentedness of our minds to recover the honour of that Religion which only can make us happy and our Posterity after us 2. What Encouragement we have from the sufferings of Christ to bear our own the better because we see by his example that God deals no more hardly with us than he did with his own Son if he layes heavy things upon us Why should we think to escape when his own Son underwent so much if we meet with reproaches and ill usage with hard measure and a mean condition with injuries and violence with mockings and affronts nay with a shamefull and a painfull death what cause have we to complain for did not the Son of God undergo all these things before us If any of your Habitations have been consumed that you have been put to your shifts where to lodge your selves or your Families consider that though the Foxes have holes and the Birds of the Air have nests yet the Son of Man had not whereon to lay his head If your condition be mean and low think of him who being in the form of God took upon him the form of a servant and though he was rich yet for your sakes he became poor that through his poverty ye might be made rich If you are unjustly defamed and reproached consider what contumelies and disgraces the Son of God underwent for you If you are in pain and trouble think of his Agony and bloody sweat the nailing of his hands and feet to the Cross to be a sacrifice for the expiation of your sins Never think much of undergoing any thing whereby you may be conformable to the Image of the Son of God knowing this that if ye suffer with him ye shall also be
glorified together And you have never yet set a true estimate and value upon things if you reckon the sufferings of this present life worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed Which Glory ought alwayes to bear up our minds under our greatest afflictions here and the thoughts of that will easily bring us to the thoughts of his sufferings who by his own blood purchased an eternal redemption for us Therefore consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself lest ye be weary and faint in your mindes FINIS A DISCOURSE Concerning the TRUE REASON OF THE Sufferings OF CHRIST By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty LONDON Printed by R. White for Henry Mortlock and are to be sold at his Shop at the Sign of the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1669. A DISCOURSE concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ. CHAP. I. Of the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture Of the uncertainty it leaves us in as to the main articles of Faith manifested by an Exposition of Gen. 1. suitable to that way The state of the Controversie in general concerning the sufferings of Christ for us He did not suffer the same we should have done The grand mistake in making Punishments of the nature of Debts the difference between them at large discover'd from the different reason and ends of them The right of punishment in God proved against Crellius not to arise from meer dominion The end of Punishment not bare Compensation as it is in debts what punishment due to an injured person by the right of Nature proper punishment a result of Laws Crellius his great mistake about the end of Punishments Not designed for satisfaction of Anger as it is a desire of Revenge Seneca and Lactantius vindicated against Crellius The Magistrates interest in Punishment distinct from that of private persons Of the nature of Anger in God and the satisfaction to be made to it Crellius his great arguments against satisfaction depend on a false Nâ—tion of Gods anger Of the ends of divine Punishments and the different nature of them in this and the future state SIR ALthough the Letter I receiv'd from your hands contained in it so many mistakes of my meaning and design that it seemed to be the greatest civility to the Writer of it to give no answer at all to it because that could not be done without the discovery of far more weaknesses in him than he pretends to finde in my discourse Yet the weight and importance of the matter may require a further account from me concerning the true reason of the sufferings of Christ. Wherein my design was so far from representing old Errors to the best advantage or to rack my wits to defend them as that person seems to suggest that I aimed at nothing more than to give a true account of what upon a serious enquiry I judged to be the most natural and genuine meaning of the Christian Doctrine contained in the Writings of the New Testament 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 doe 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 imploy'd 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 Christs 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 Resurrection after death For if it be enough to prove that Christs 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 meer 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 S. John concerning the Gospel deliver'd 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
21. 13. Josh. 24. 32. Psal. 102. 25. Ezra 1. 11. To which I answer 1. That the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place must not be taken from every sense the word is ever used for but in that which the words out of which these are taken do imply and in Isa. 53. 11. it doth not answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which by the confession of all is never properly used for taking away but for bearing of a burden and is used with a respect to the punishment of sin Lament 5. 7. Our fathers have sinned and are not and we have born their iniquities where the same word is used so that the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must depend upon that in Isaiah of which more afterward 2. Granting that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth answer sometimes to the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it makes nothing to Crellius his purpose unless he can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth ever signifie the taking away a thing by the destruction of it for where it answers to that word it is either for the offering up of a Sacrifice in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very frequently used as is confessed by Crellius and in that sense it is no prejudice at all to our cause for then it must be granted that Christ upon the Cross is to be considered as a sacrifice for the sins of men and so our sins were laid upon him as they were supposed to be on the Sacrifices under the Law in order to the expiation of them by the shedding their blood and if our Adversaries would acknowledge this the difference would not be so great between us or else it is used for the removal of a thing from one place to another the thing it self still remaining in being as 2 Sam. 21. 13. And he made Sauls bones to ascend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he took them away saith Crellius true but it is such a taking away as is a bare removal the thing still remaining the same is to be said of Joseph's bones Josh. 24. 32. which are all the places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used and although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sometimes taken in another sense as Psal. 102. 25. yet nothing can be more unreasonable than such a way of arguing as this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Crellius signifies taking away we demand his proof of it is it that the word signifies so much of it self No that he grants it doth not Is it that it is frequently used in the Greek Version to render a word that properly doth signifie so No nor that neither But how is it then Crellius tells us that it sometimes answers to a word that signifies to make to 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 dayes 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 alter'd so that at last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far enough from any such signification as Crellius would fix upon it unless he will assert that Christs 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 mention'd 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. 52 54. and bearing sin in that sense Ezek. 16. 58. Thou hast born thy lewdness 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 19. 8. to bear his iniquity Levit. 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 But supposing we should grant them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie to take away let us see what excellent sense they make of these words of S. 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
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 service ableness 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 mention'd and then we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applyed to sins signifies expiation as Heb. 9. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when applyed to persons it signifies the deliverance purchased by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be consider'd as a bare price or a thing given but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance and is therefore not only call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation and we have shewed doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place CHAP. V. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christs Oblation proposed 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 Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest Crellius destroyes the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true 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 His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were expiatory sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of sacrifices proposed What influence 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 Christs Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in expiatory sacrifices no bare preparation to a sacrifice proved by the Jewish Laws and the customs of other Nations Whether Christs 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 All things necessary to a legal Oblation concurre in the death of Christ. 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 Christs exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute Objections answered 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 interceding are not properly sacerdotal acts any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offer'd 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 replyes That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven and may be applyed to the death of Christ onely 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 kill'd the beast but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holyes to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven doth answer but the 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 mention'd 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 1. 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. 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 Hebr. 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 onely 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 Gods anger then diverted here by the making this Atonement The like instance we read in Davids 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 fâ—… sin as appointed by the Law viz. of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings and incense iâ— 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 waâ— to make atonement for them as well as thâ— sin and trespass-offerings excepting those sacrifices which were instituted in acknowledgement of Gods Soveraignty over them and presence among them as the daily Sacrifices the meat and drink offerings oâ— such as were meerly occasional c. Thus it is said that Aaron and his sons werâ— appointed to make an Atonement for Israel So that as Grotius observes out of Philâ— The High-Priest was a Mediator betweeâ— 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 hâ—… was by his Office to offer to him Wâ—… are now to consider how far this holâ— in reference to Christ for whose sake tâ—… Apostle brings in these words and suâ—… would not have mentioned this as the prâ— mary Office of a High-Priest in order to â—he proving Christ to be our High-Priest â—fter a more excellent manner than the â—…ronical was unless he had agreed with â—im in the nature of his Office and exâ—eeded him in the manner of performâ—nce For the Apostle both proves that he was 〈◊〉 true and proper and not a bare Metaâ—horical High-Priest and that in such a capaâ—ity he very far exceeded the Priests after the order of Aaron But how could that possibly be if he failed 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 onely an allusion to the Legal Priesthood and some kinde of similitude between Christ and the Aaronical Priests but it is such a kinde of allusion that the Apostle designs to prove Christ to be an High-Priest by it and which is of the greatest force he proves the necessity of Christs 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 he looks at as the peculiar and distinguishiâ—… character of a High-Priest for intercediâ—â— for others and having compassion upoâ— them might be done by others besides thâ—… High-Priest but this was that withoâ—â— which he could not make good his name what order soever he were of If Chriâ—… then had no proper sacrifice to offer upto God to what purpose doth the Apostle sâ— industriously set himself to prove that hâ— is our High-Priest when he must needs faiâ—… in the main thing according to his own assertion How easie had it been for the Jews to have answered all the Apostles Arguments concerning the Priesthood of Christ if he had been such a Priest and made noâ— other Oblation than Crellius allows him When the Apostle proves against the Jews 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 〈◊〉 things pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins Well say the Jews we accept of this character but how do yoâ— prove concerning Christ that he was such a one Did he offer up a sacrifice foâ— sin to God upon earth as our High-Priest do No saith Crellius his sufferings were â—…ely a preparation for his Priesthood in Heaâ—â—n 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-Priest offers Yes â—aith Crellius it may be called so by way of â—llusion Well then say they you grant that your Jesus is onely 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
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 Christs entrance 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 onely 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 us 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 Christs 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 meerly 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. 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 Crellius his Objections answered The Jews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated meerly as a slight part of obedience Gods expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices and from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be meerly declarative If it had been so it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death 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 and because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christs entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice respecting the person belong to the death of Christ which are Atonement Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Reconciliation by Christs death doth not meerly 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 The Objections from Gods being reconciled in the sending his Son and the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered and the whole concluded 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 call'd 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 Christs entrance into Heaven or as comprehending in it the consequents of it I begin with the Expiation and Remission of sins as to which Socinus doth acknowledge That the great correspondency doth lie between Christs 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
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 Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs 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 are 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 withall 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 Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests 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 the 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 mercifull High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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. 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
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 â—â—iginally from the kindness of God you may all it an Oblation to God if you please But how is it possible then say the Jews 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 oâ—… barely Metaphorical and having nothinâ— really answering the name of a High Priest Thus the force of all the Apostlâ— Arguments is plainly taken away by whâ—â— Crellius and his Brethren assert concerninâ— the Priesthood of Christ. But Crelliâ—… thinks to make it good by saying Thâ—â— things that are improper and figurative maâ— be far more excellent than the things that arâ— proper to which they are opposed so 〈◊〉 Christs Priesthood may be far more excelleâ—â— than the Aaronical although his be onely figurative and the other proper But the questioâ—… is not Whether Christs Priesthood by any other adventitious considerations as oâ— 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 selâ— did far exceed all the Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law 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 call'd 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 Hâ— receiving his power from God doth not iâ—ply that he was a Priest although Crelliâ—â— insists on that unless all the Kings of thâ— Earth are Priests by that means too anâ— Christ could not have had a subordinatâ— power as King as well as Priest But hiâ— death is more implied saith Crellius in thâ— 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 encouragement 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 implyed 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 call'd by the same name 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 begâ—tting 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 deliver'd 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 Christs 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 sense 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 Christs 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 Christs interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us doth 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 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 S. 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 call'd an Oblation but they deny That it is meant of an Expiatory Sacrifice but of a free-will offering and the reason Crellius gives is because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost alwayes used of sacrifices which are not expiatory but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice they are not applyed to that which was properly expiatory in it viz. the offering up of the blood for no smell saith he went up from thence but to the burning of the fat and the kidneys which although required to perfect the expiation yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ where all things are perfected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day the former discourse hath already discover'd For what can be more absurd than to say that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lye in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead But of that already We now come to a punctual and direct answer as to which two things must be enquired into 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applyed 1. For the importance of the phrase The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noahs sacrifice after the flood of which it is said that he offer'd burnt-offerings on the Altar and the Lord smelled a savour of rest or a sweet savour Which we are not to imagine in a gross corporeal manner as Crellius seems to understand it when he saith the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the kidneys for surely none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet smelling savour of it self and we must least of all imagine that of God which Porphyry saith was the property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased and as it were to grow fat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the smell and vapours of blood and flesh by which testimony it withall appears that the same steams in sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature which we may easily doe if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in when it calls it Odorem placabilitatis or the savour of rest as the word properly signifies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word formed from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used for the resting of the Ark v. 4. of the same Chapter and so it imports a rest after some commotion and in that sense is very proper to Atonement or that whereby God makes his anger to rest so Aben Ezra upon that place expounds the Savour of rest to be such a one which makes God cease from his anger Thence in Hiphil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to appeal or to make peace in which sense it is used by R. Solom upon Isa. 27. 5. Munster tells us the sense is Deus nunc quievit ab ira placatus suit and to the same purpose Vatablus which sense is most agreeable to the design of the following words in which God expresseth his great kindness and the Lord said in his heart I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake which are words highly expressing how much God was propitiated by the Sacrifice which Noah offered and therefore Josephus doth well interpret this to be a proper Expiatory Sacrifice that God would now be atoned and send no more such a deluge upon the world which he saith was the substance of Noahs prayer when he offered this Burnt-offering and that God would receive his Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉