discharg'd the Office of Priesthood best because they had a greater power over the people or that Nero was the most excellent Emperour of Rome because he excelled the rest in Musick and Poetry by which we see that to assert an excellency of one above another we must not go to another kind but shew its excellency in that wherein the comparison lies So that this doth not prove the excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ because he hath a greater power to perswade deliver and govern than any Sacrifice under the Law for these are things quite of another nature from the consideration of a Sacrifice But therein the excellency of a Sacrifice is to be demonstrated that it excells all other in the proper end and design of a Sacrifice i. e. if it be more effectual towards God for obtaining the expiation of sin which was always thought to be the proper end of all Sacrifices for expiation Although then Christ may be allowed to excel all other Sacrifices in all imaginable respects but that which is the proper intention of a Sacrifice it may prove far greater excellency in Christ but it doth withall prove a greater imperfection in his Sacrifice if it fail in that which is the proper end of it So that if we should grant that the expiation attributed to Christ's Sacrifice signified no more than reclaiming men from their sins or their deliverance by his power or a declaration of God's decree to pardon this may prove that there are better arguments to believe the remission of our sins now under the Gospel but they do not in the least prove that Christ is to be consider'd as a Sacrifice much less that he doth far excell in the notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice all those which were offered up to God for that end under the Law VII But we must now further consider whether this be all attributed to Christ in order to expiation in Scripture i. e. Whether those words which of themselves do imply the aversion of the wrath of God when used concerning other Sacrifices when applied to the Sacrifice of Christ do only imply the begetting faith in us or a declaration of pardon The words which are used to this purpose are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all applied to the blood of Christ and the dispute is whether they signifie no more but a declaration of pardon or a means to beget faith in us The first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crellius acknowledgeth do frequently signifie deliverance from guilt and punishment but he saith they may likewise signifie a declaration of that deliverance as decreed by God or a purging from the sins themselves or from the custom of sinning So that by Crellius his own confession the sense we contend for is most proper and usual the other are more remote and only possible why then should we forsake the former sense which doth most perfectly agree to the nature of a Sacrifice which the other senses have no such relation to as that hath For these being the words made use of in the New Testament to imply the force and efficacy of a Sacrifice why should they not be understood in the same sense which the Hebrew words are taken in when they are applied to the Sacrifices under the Law We are not enquiring into all possible senses of words but into the most natural and agreeable to the scope of them that use them and that we shall make it appear to be the same we plead for in the places in dispute between us as 1 John 1.7 The blood of Iesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgeth us from all sin Heb. 9.13 14. If the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had by himself purged our sins So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used with a respect to the blood of Christ Heb. 10.22 Apocalyp 1.5 And because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26.28 This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1.14 And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by vertue of that declaration which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Father's will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such
declarative and did no more depend on the sacrifices offered than on a condition required by God the neglect of which would be an act of disobedience in them and by this means it could represent say they no more than such an expiation to be by Christ viz. God's declaring that sins are expiated by him on the performance of such a condition required in order thereto as laying down his life was But we assert another kind of expiation of sin by vertue of the Sacrifice being slain and offered which was real and depended upon the Sacrifice And this was twofold a Civil and a Ritual expiation according to the double capacity in which the people of the Iews may be considered either as members of a Society subsisting by a body of Laws which according to the strictest Sanction of it makes death the penalty of disobedience Deut. 27.26 but by the will of the Legislator did admit of a relaxation in many cases allowed by himself in which he declares That the death of the beast designed for a Sacrifice should be accepted instead of the death of the offender and so the offence should be fully expiated as to the execution of the penal Law upon him And thus far I freely admit what Grotius asserts upon this subject and do yield that no other offence could be expiated in this manner but such which God himself did particularly declare should be so And therefore no sin which was to be punished by cutting off was to be expiated by Sacrifice as wilful Idolatry Murther c. Which it is impossible for those to give an account of who make the expiation wholly typical for why then should not the greatest sins much rather have had sacrifices of expiation appointed for them because the Consciences of men would be more solicitous for the pardon of greater than lesser sins and the blood of Christ represented by them was designed for the expiation of all From whence it is evident that it was not a meer typical expiation but it did relate to the civil constitution among them But besides this we are to consider the people with a respect to that mode of Divine Worship which was among them by reason of which the people were to be purified from the legal impurities which they contracted which hindred them from joyning with others in the publick Worship of God and many Sacrifices were appointed purposely for the expiating this legal guilt as particularly the ashes of the red heifer Numb 19.9 which is there called a purification for sin And the Apostle puts the blood of Bulls and of Goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean together and the effect of both of them he saith was to sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh which implies that there was some proper and immediate effect of these sacrifices upon the people at that time though infinitely short of the effect of the blood of Christ upon the Consciences of men By which it is plain the Apostle doth not speak of the same kind of expiation in those sacrifices which was in the Sacrifice of Christ and that the one was barely typical of the other but of a different kind of expiation as far as purifying the flesh is from purging the Conscience But we do not deny that the whole dispensation was typical and that the Law had a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things i. e. a dark and obscure representation and not the perfect resemblance of them There are two things which the Apostle asserts concerning the Sacrifices of the Law First that they had an effect upon the Bodies of men which he calls purifying the flesh the other is that they had no power to expiate for the sins of the soul considered with a respect to the punishment of another life which he calls purging the Conscience from dead works and therefore he saith that all the gifts and sacrifices under the Law could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience and that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin So that the proper expiation which was made by them was civil and ritual relating either to corporal punishment or to legal uncleanness from whence the Apostle well proves the necessity of a higher Sacrifice to make expiation for sins as pertaining to the Conscience But that expiation among the Iews did relate to that Polity which was established among them as they were a people under the Government of a body of Laws distinct from the rest of the world And they being considered as such it is vain to enquire whether they had only temporal or eternal promises for it was impossible they should have any other than temporal unless we imagine that God would own them for a distinct people in another World as he did in this For what Promises relate to a People as such must consider them as a People and in that capacity they must be the blessings of a Society viz. peace plenty number of People length of days c. But we are far from denying that the general Principles of Religion did remain among them viz. that there is a God and a rewarder of them that seek him and all the Promises God made to the Patriarchs did continue in force as to another Country and were continually improved by the Prophetical instructions among them But we are now speaking of what did respect the people in general by vertue of that Law which was given them by Moses and in that respect the punishment of faults being either death or exclusion from the publick Worship the expiation of them was taking away the obligation to either of these which was the guilt of them in that consideration But doth not this take away the typical nature of these sacrifices No but it much rather establisheth it For as Socinus argues If the expiation was only typical there must be something â—n the type correspondent to that which is typified by it As the Brazen Serpent typified Christ and the benefit which was to come by him because as many as looked up to it were healed And Noah's Ark is said to be a type of Baptism because as many as entred into that were saved from the deluge So Corinth 10. the Apostle saith that those things happened to them in types v. 11. because the events which happened to them did represent those which would fall upon disobedient Christians So that to make good the true notion of a Type we must assert an expiation that was real then and agreeable to that dispensation which doth represent an expiation of a far higher nature which was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ. III. Which being premised I come to prove that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed in stead of the offenders themselves Which will appear from Levit. 17.11 For
of his had been performed such as the entring into the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation and carrying it and sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people And it is observable that although the Levitical Law be silent in the common Sacrifices who were to kill them whether the Priests or the Levites yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin it is expresly said that he should not only kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself but the goat of the sin offering which is for the people And although the Talmudists dispute from their Traditions on both sides whether any one else might on the day of expiation slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest yet it is no news for them to dispute against the Text and the Talmud it self is clear that the High-Priest did it From whence it appears there was something peculiar on that day as to the slaying oâ— the sin-offerings and if our Adversaries opinion hold good that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did if not alone yet chiefly represent the Sacrifice of Christ no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at hâ—s carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too from whence it will unavoidably follow that Christ did not enter into his Office of High-Priest when he entred into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins It is then to no purpose at all if Crellius could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices which he will not say the Sacrifice of Christ was represented by the Levites might kill the beasts for Sacrifice for it appears that in these Sacrifices wherein themselves contend that Christ's was represented the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither Therefore if we speak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ those were the Iews and we make not them Priests in it for they aimed at no more than taking away his life as the Popae among the Romans and those whose bare Office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Iews did but if we consider it with a respect to him that offered up his life to God then we say that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it it being designed for the expiation of sin and by vertue of this blood shed for that end he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies there ever living to make intercession for us But the vertue of the consequent acts depends upon the efficacy of the blood shed for expiation otherwise the High-Priest might have entred with the same effect into the Holy of Holies with any other blood besides that which was shed on purpose as a sin-offering for expiation of the sins of the people which it was unlawful for him to do And from hence it is that the Apostle to the Hebrews insists so much on the comparison between the blood of Christ and the blood of the legal Sacrifices and the efficacy of the one far above the other in its power of expiation which he needed not to have done if the shedding of his blood had been only a preparation for his entrance on his Priesthood in Heaven So that the proper notion of a Sacrifice for sin as it notes the giving the life of one for the expiation of the sins of another doth properly lie in the mactation though other sacrificial acts may be consequent upon it So it was in the animales hostiae among the Romans in which saith Macrobius Sola anima Deo sacratur of which he tells us Virgil properly speaks in those words Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis And that we may the better understand what he means by the anima here he saith elsewhere as Macrobius and Servius observe out of his excellent Skill and accuracy in the Pontifical rites Sanguine placastis ventos virgine caesa Cum primum Iliacas Danai venistis ad oras Sanguine quaerendi reditus animaque litandum Argolica Which shews that the expiation was supposed to lie in the blood which they called the Soul as the Scripture doth And the Persians as Strabo tells us looked upon the bare mactation as the Sacrifice for they did not porricere as the Romans called it they laid none of the parts of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to be consumed there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For God regarded nothing but the Soul in the sacrifice which words Eustathius likewise useth upon Homer of the Sacrifices of the Magi. And Strabo affirms of the ancient Lusitani that they cut off nothing of the Sacrifice but consumed the entrails whole but though such Sacrifices which were for divination were not thought expiatory and therefore different from the animales hostiae yet among the Persians every Sacrifice had a respect to expiation of the whole people For Herodotus tells us that every one that offers Sacrifice among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prays for good to all Persians and the King But thus much may serve to prove against Crellius that the mactation in an Expiatory Sacrifice was not a meer preparation to a Sacrifice but that it was a proper Sacrificial act and consequently that Christ acted as High-Priest when he gave himself for us an offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour IX But this will further appear from those places wherein Christ is said to offer up himself once to God the places to this purpose are Heb. 7.27 Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up Sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the Peoples for this he did once when he offered up himself Heb. 9.14 How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead works to serve the living God V. 25 26 27 28. Nor yet that he should offer himself often as the High-Priest entreth into the holy place every year with the blood of others for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to die but after this the Iudgment so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation Heb. 10.10 11 12. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all And every High-Priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same
his death i. e. as they explain it themselves would I had undergone what he did and they give this general rule where ever it is said behold I am for expiation it is to be understood behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities So that this signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a price of redemption for others Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another and rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 21.30 30.12 Numb 35.31 32. where we render it satisfaction and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 48.7 and thereby we fully understand what our Saviour meant when he said that he gave his Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many and to this day the Iews call the Cock which they kill for Expiation on the day of Atonement by the name of Cappara and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice they every time use words to this purpose Let this Cock be an exchange for me let him be in my room and be made an Expiation for me let death come to him but to me and all Israel life and happiness I insist on these things only to let us understand that the Iews never understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense our Adversaries contend for when applyed to an Expiatory Sacriâ—ice but as implying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another so as by the punishment of that the other in whose room he suffers may obtain deliverance Which is the sense we plead for But the utmost which Socinus and Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation is barely this That the offering of them is to be considered â—s a meer condition that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins than the paring a mans nails would have had if God had required it upon which slight obedienâ—e the pardon of some light sins migâ—t be obâ—ained But can any one imagine that this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law the great severity by which they were requir'd under the Law the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them but above all the reason that God himself assigns in the Law That the blood was given for expiation because it was the life and the correspondency so clearly expressed in the New Testament between the Sacrifice of Christ and those Levitical Sacrifices Can any one I say imagine upon these considerations that the Sacrifices had no other respect to the expiation of sin than as they were a slight testimony of their obedience to God Why were not an inward sorrow for sin and tears and prayers rather made the only conditions of Expiation than such a burthensome and chargeable service imposed upon them which at last signified nothing but that a command being supposed they would have sinned if they had broken it But upon our supposition a reasonable account is given of all the expiatory Sacrifices viz. That God would have them see how highly he esteemed his Laws because an expiation was not to be made for the breach of them but by the sacrificing of the life of some Creature which he should appoint instead of the death of the Offender and if the breach of those Laws which he had given them must require such an expiation what might they then think would the sins of the whole world do which must be expiated by a Sacrifice infinitely greater than all those put together were viz. The death and sufferings of the Son of God for the sins of men But if the offering Sacrifice had been a bare condition required of the person who committed the fault in order to expiation Why is it never said That the person who offered it did expiate his own fault thereby For that had been the most proper sense for if the expiation did depend on the offering the Sacrifice as on the condition of it then the performing the condition gave him an immediate right to the benefit of the promise If it be said That his own act was not only necessary in bringing the Sacrifice but the Priests also in offering up the blood This will not make it at all the more reasonable because the pardon of sin should not only depend upon a man 's own act but upon the act of another which he could not in reason be accountable for if he miscarried in it If the Priest should refuse to do his part or be unfit to do it or break some Law in the doing of it how hard would it seem that a mans sins could not be expiated when he had done all that lay in his own power in order to the expiation of them but that another person whose actions he had no command over neglected the doing his duty So that if the Sacrifice had no other influence on expiation but as a part of obedience in all reason the expiation should have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him whose sins were to be expiated by it IV. But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation That if it were by Substitution then the Expiation would be most properly attributed to the Sacrifices themselves whereas it is only said that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is obtained but that God or the Priest do expiate and to God it belongs properly because he takes away the guilt and punishment of sin which is saith he all meant by expiation to the Priest only consequently as doing what God requires in order to it and to the Sacrifices only as the conditions by which it was obtained But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God and implies no more than bare pardon it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of blood so that without that there was no remission How improperly doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purifying and in correspondency to that the blood of Christ purging our Consciences and that all things under the Law were purified with blood Had all this no other signification but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance but as a mere act of obedience when God had required it why doth not the Apostle rather say without Godâ—s favour there is no remission than without the shedding of blood if all the expiation did properly belong to that and only very remotely to the blood of the Sacrifice What imaginable necessity was there that Christ must shed his blood in order to the expiation of our