Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death God's readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of God's readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring God's will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe That God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the meritorious cause for procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of God's will and decree to pardon but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin as well as the blood of Christ but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon And so as the acceptance of the condition required or the price paid may be said to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So God's acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering but to the act of God in accepting and it can be no other ways known than God's acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world VIII But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterâ—uge for therein lies their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtlety in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. Because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5.10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of hâ—â— Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ died for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one die but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order to something farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he would expiate sins
were for meer shame thought fit to be inserted In this Correct Edition the Question is put Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer as he did And the Answer is twofold 1. That Christ suffered for our Sins by God's appointment and underwent a cruel Death as a Sacrifice of Expiation Who could imagine this to be the Racovian Catechism still 2. Because those who are to be saved by him are subject to the like Sufferings This is somewhat a dark Reason but the former is that which we are to consider Christ say they suffer'd for the sins of Mankind and was a Sacrifice of Expiation by his Death What can we desire more shall we always maintain disputes about Words when we agree in Sense No that is not the Case but we may seem to agree in Words and differ in Sense That therefore must be more strictly examined But because they sometimes seem to be displeased that we take their Opinion from foreign Writers since they here set up for themselves and are so able to express their own Sense and because they refer me to their own late Prints in the English Tongue therefore I shall apply my self to them to find out what their true Sense in this matter is And they seem freely to tell us what they deny and what they affirm 1. They deny that this Sacrifice was by way of true and proper Satisfaction or full and adequate Payment to the Justice of God 2. They affirm that this Sacrifice was only an Oblation or Application to the Mercy of God In another place they complain that very few of their Adversaries have really understood what they affirm or deny concerning the Causes or Effects of our Saviour's death And they say the Question is only this Whether the Lord Christ offer'd himself as such a Sacrifice Oblation or Price as might be made to the Justice of God by way of Equivalent for what we should have suffer'd or was an Oblation or Satisfaction as all former Sacrifices under the Law were to the Mercy of God by way of Humble Suit and Deprecation So that they will no longer Dispute with us about the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of Mankind and so this Point seems wholly gained But we must have a Care of being deceived by them For the Scripture was too clear and full to be born down by the Authority or Evasions of Socinus and therefore they found it necessary to comply in Terms as long as they could keep to their own Notions under them But what is the true Meaning of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Mercy of God If it be no more but as a Condition intervening Socinus would not allow that to make an Expiatory Sacrifice and therein he was in the Right The main Point then between us seems to be whether the Death of Christ had Respect to the Justice or to the Mercy of God And here we must consider what they understand by the Justice of God 1. They say that Almighty God as King and Proprietor of all Persons and Things can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do 2. That it is not the Justice of God by which he is prompted to punish sinners but his Holiness and Wisdom and that Justice hath no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplaced and that it do not exceed the Offence 3. That God could not justly or wisely substitute an innocent and well deserving Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the Place of the unrighteous and worthless because it is of the Nature of Justice not to misplace Punishments 4. That Christ could not offer himself freely for us to undergo the Punishment due to us nor could God accept of it or allow it because it is of the very Essence of Justice not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the Desert of the Offence which they say are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice In another place they say That Christ made himself an Oblation an Expiatory Sacrifice on the Altar of the Cross for our Sins But his Sufferings were not as Trinitarians teach designed as a Punishment laid on him in our stead because Punishment is the evil of Suffering inflicted for the evil of Doing but Christ having done no sin what he underwent was only labour and suffering and no Punishment And again they say the Oblation was not made to the Justice but to the Mercy of God But the Sufferings of Christ being graciously accepted by God as an Intercession on our behalf God was satisfied with them and this they say is the proper Notion of Satisfaction The same they repeat in other places And if no more were to be regarded but meer words this Controversie were at an End for they own Christ's Death to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind and that he made by his Sufferings Satisfaction to God But I shall now make it appear that whatever they pretend they do really own no such thing as the Death of Christ being an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind However we have this Advantage by these Concessions that the Scriptures are yielded to be on our side and that they are forced to speak as we do whatsoever their meaning be But that they do not own any proper Expiatory Sacrifice in the Death of Christ will best appear by an Account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie and of the true State of it The first Rise of it was from the Multitudes of Places of Scripture which Attribute all the proper Effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice to the Death of Christ. And that by those who best understood for what End it was that Christ suffer'd and had no Intention to deceive or to amuse Mankind I mean our Saviour and his Apostles Our Blessed Saviour himself saith That the Son of Man came to give his Life a Ransom for many A Ransom as to what Surely not as to the Mercy of God But Christ's Death was a Ransom as it was an Expiatory Sacrifice and if the one respects the Mercy of God the other must do so too They may say the Ransom is from the Punishment of Sin but this Ransom might be made as to the Mercy of God which delivers from it But a Ransom is something which is paid or laid down as a Price of Redemption and was very well understood in that Sense among the Jews who all knew that by their Law the Blood of the Sacrifices was appointed to be a Ransom for their Souls For it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul To which the Apostle refers when he saith that without shedding of Blood there is no Remission So that hereby the Jews understood these things 1. That there was a Punishment due
and perfected in Heaven This doth evidently prove that the Blood of Christ was shed for the Expiation of Sins and that as the High-Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the Blood of the Sacrifice of Atonement there to make Intercession so Christ as our High-Priest with his Blood shed enter'd in Heaven where he ever lives to make Intercession for us But say they the Sacrifices under the Law did not make any proper Satisfaction for Sin therefore neither did Christ's Sacrifice So that at last they confess that Christ's death was no proper Expiatory Sacrifice for whatsoever is so must make Satisfaction to the Law and Iustice of God But say they the Sacrifices were not offer'd for Payment but for Remission I say they were a Payment in order to Remission I mean such a Payment as the Law appointed and God accepted and that is true and proper Satisfaction But we must distinguish a Legal Payment and Satisfaction from Pecuniary Payment to a Creditor And all the Confusion these Men have run into hath been from want of distinguishing these of which I have treated at large in the following Discourse Thus far it appears that they have by no means allow'd the Death and Sufferings of Christ to have been an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Sense of the Iews as it was a Ransom or Price of Redemption But there is something farther to be consider'd in an Expiatory Sacrifice and that is a Substitution in place of the Offenders For that the Jews and others understood by a Sacrifice of Expiation when the Punishment of one was laid upon another in order to his Deliverance Not that the very same was to be undergone as appears by the Sacrifice of Atonement on the Day of Expiation which was not that which the People of Israel were to have suffer'd without it but it was what God Appointed and Accepted instead of their Punishment and therefore the Scape-Goat is said to bear upon him all the Iniquities of the People which was supposed to be so much charged with them that he that let him go was to Purify himself before he could come into the Camp So in the Sin-offering for the Congregation the Elders were to lay their hands upon the head of the Bullock before the Lord and in other Sacrifices the Rule among the Jews was that none but the Owner was to lay on his hands to shew on whose Account he was offer'd up as a Sacrifice of Atonement For here the Right of Dominion was sufficient for Substitution but in a Rational Agent Consent is necessary to make it Just. Having thus seen what the true Nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice was we must now consider how far this can agreee with the Suffering of Christ for the Sins of Mankind And we have already found our Saviour himself declaring that he gave his Life a Ransom for many But that is not all for when he instituted his last Supper for a Commemoration of his Suffering he said For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins His Disciples to whom he spake these words must understand them as the Jews commonly did when the Blood of a Sacrifice was offer'd for an Atonement in order to the Remission of Sins And one great end of his Preaching was to declare that he came into the World with that design that it was the Will of God he should suffer and that he came to do his Will And therefore speaking of laying down his Life he saith No man taketh it away from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again This Commandment have I received of my Father So that here we have God's Appointment of such a Sacrifice of Atonement for Mankind Christ's free and voluntary Consent for the undertaking it and a Translation of the Punishment of our Sins upon him which St. Paul calls God's making him to be sin for us who knew no Sin which shews that the Sufferings of Christ were on the Account of our Sins being laid upon him by his own Consent as our Sin-offering or a Sacrifice of Expiation for our Sins And in another place saith that he hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us How could he be made a Curse for us in order to the Redeeming us from the Curse of the Law if his Sufferings were only a meer voluntary Condition in order to his Exaltation without bearing the Burden of our Sins But St. Paul adds that we have Redemption through his Blood the Forgiveness of Sins That God hath set him forth as a Propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the Remission of Sins That when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son That he hath given himself for us an Offering and Sacrifice to God That he appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself and that he was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many That he gave himself a Ransom for all Neither was it St. Paul only who speaks after this manner but St. Peter saith that his own self bare our Sins in his own body on the Tree That Christ also hath once suffered for Sins the Just for the Unjust And St. John that the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin and that God sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins So that Christ and his Apostles agree in the same manner of expression and great weight is laid upon Christ's being a Propitiation for us and our Hopes of Remission of Sins and the Favour of God depend upon it What now is to be said to all these places of Scripture Were they designed only to humor and impose upon the Credulity of Mankind by telling them of such an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Death of Christ which never was nor could be being Repugnant to the Iustice of God For Christ say they being Innocent could not suffer the Punishment of our Sins and God being Just could not accept of it although he freely offer'd himself as a Sacrifice for our Sins Doth this agree with the Force and Design of all these Expressions Had not Christ the Power and Will to offer up himself as a Sacrifice of Propitiation to God And where lies the Injustice of accepting such a Sacrifice which he freely offer'd But it could not be say they by way of Punishment for our Sins What then is the meaning of all those places wherein he is said to bear our Sins and to suffer in our stead the just for the unjust What is this but to contradict the Tenour and Scope of the New Testament with respect to the Death of Christ and to turn their Sense quite another way from what they were thought to signifie at that time which
upon those terms For by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek Translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise-worthy of discretion and sound judgment For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the force of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason be answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ be repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tend rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christ's death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and was paid as a price for our redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin if being truly understood it is so far from enervating that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain II. For our clearer proceeding herein nothing will be more necessary than to understand the true state of the Controversie which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some who have managed it with greater zeal than judgment who have asserted more than they needed to have done and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to assaults It is easie to observe that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion which few who have considered these things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict Payment Against this Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christ's paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was eternal Death and that as the consequent of inherent guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo Neither is it enough to say That Christ had undergone eternul Death unless he had been able to free himself from it for the admission of one to pay for another who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could was not the same which the Law required For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned and if a Mediator could have paid the same the Original Law must have been disjunctive viz. That either the Offender must suffer or another for him but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the old But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows that what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the obligation But if it be said That the dignity of the person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment this is a plain confession that it is not the same but something equivalent which answers the ends of the Sanction as much as the same would have done which is the thing we contend for Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense
be clearly expressed therein I. THESE things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments and how far they are of the nature of debts and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie but that we may proceed with all possible clearness in a debate of this consequence we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter for their concessions are in terms sometimes so fair as though the difference were meerly about words without any considerable difference in the thing it self If we charge them with denying satisfaction Crellius answers in the name of them that we do it unjustly for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God and agreeable to the Scriptures If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ they assert the contrary as appears by the same Author Nay Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too They acknowledge that Christ died for us nay that there was a commutation between Christ and us both of one person for another and of a price for a person and that the death of Christ may be said to move God to redeem us they acknowledge reconciliation and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay they assert that Christ's death was by reason of our sins and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin And what could we desire more if they meant the same thing by these words which we do They assert a satisfaction but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ but only as a condition intervening upon the performance of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory that he might free men from the punishment of their sins They attribute merit to Christ's death but in the same sense that we may merit too when we do what is pleasing to God They acknowledge that Christ died for us but not in our stead but for our advantage that there was a commutation but not such a one as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it when they speak of a moving cause they tell us they mean no more than the performance of any condition may be said to move or as our prayers and repentance do The reconciliation they speak of doth not at all respect God but us they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ but not depending upon it any otherwise than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven there to expiate our sins by his power and not by his blood but they utterly deny that the death of Christ is to be considered as a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or that it hath any further influence upon it than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and particularly the promise of remission of sins on which and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine and that faith may incline us to obedience and that obedience being the condition in order to pardon at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to exercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven II. 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denied by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed a death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great endâ— the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governour and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to God's dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he
yes just as we may attribute Caesar's subduing Rome to his passing over Rubicon because he took that in his way to the doing of it so they make the death of Christ only as a passage in order to expiation of sins by taking away the punishment of them For that shall not be actually perfected they say till his full deliverance of all those that obey him from hell and the grave which will not be till his second coming So that if we only take the body of Christ for his second coming and the Cross of Christ or the tree for his Throne of Glory then they will acknowledge that Christ may very well be said to take away sins in his own body on the tree but if you take it in any sense that doth imply any peculiar efficacy to the death of Christ for all the plainness of St. Peter's words they by no means will admit of it VII But because Crellius urgeth Grotius with the sense of that place Isa. 53.11 out of which he contends these words are taken and Crellius conceives he can prove there that bearing is the same with taking away sin We now come to consider what force he can find from thence for the justifying his assertion That the bearing of sins when attributed to Christ doth not imply the punishment of them but the taking them away The words are for he shall bear their iniquities As to which Grotius observes That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iniquity is sometimes taken for the punishment of sin 2 King 7.9 and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bear and whenever it is joyned with sin or iniquity in all languages and especially the Hebrew it signifies to suffer punishment for although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes signifie to take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never does so that this phrase can receive no other interpretation Notwithstanding all which Crellius attempts to prove That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be taken in a sense contrary to the natural and perpetual use of the word for which his first argument is very infirm viz. because it is mentioned after the death of Christ and is therefore to be considered as the reward of the other Whereas it appears 1. By the Prophets discourse that he doth not insist on an exact methodical order but dilates and amplifies things as he sees occasion for Verse 9. he saith He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death and Verse 10. he said Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to grief Will Crellius therefore say that this must be consequent to his death and burial 2. The particle◠may be here taken causally as we render it very agreeably to the sense and so it gives an account of the foregoing clause By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities And that this is no unusual acception of that particle might be easily cleared from many places of Scripture if it were necessary and from this very Prophet as Isa. 39.1 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King 2◠12 and Isa. 64.5 Thou art wroth for we have sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same particle is made the casual of what went before But we need not insist upon this to answer Crellius who elsewhere makes use of it himself and says They must be very ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue who do not know that the conjunction copulative is often taken casually and so much is confessed by Socinus also where he explains that particle in one sense in the beginning and casually in the middle of the verse and the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he moved c. but if this will not do he attempts to prove That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter hath the signification of taking away v. 4. For he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows which is applied by St. Matth. 8.17 to bodily diseases which our Saviour did not bear but took away as it is said in the foregoing Verse he healed all that were sick on which those words come in That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias c. To which I answer 1. It is granted by our Adversaries that St. Matthew in those words doth not give the full sense of the Prophet but only applies that by way of accommodation to bodily diseases which was chiefly intended for the sins of men And in a way of accommodation it is not unusual to strain words beyond their genuine and natural signification or what was intended primarily by the person who spake them Would it be reasonable for any to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to give because that place Psal. 68.18 where the word by all is acknowledged to signifie to receive is rendred to give Eph. 4.8 so that admitting another sense of the word here as applied to the cure of bodily diseases it doth not from thence follow that this should be the meaning of the word in the primary sense intended by the Prophet 2. The word as used by St. Matthew is very capable of the primary and natural sense for St. Matthew retains words of the same signification with that which we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither of which doth signifie taking away by causing a thing not to be So that all that is implied hereby is the pains and trouble which our Saviour took in the healing of the sick For to that end as Grotius well observes upon that place the circumstances are mentioned That it was at even and multitudes were brought to him in St. Matthew that after Sun set all that were diseased were brought and all the City was gathered together at the door in St. Mark That he departed not till it was day in St. Luke that we might the better understand how our Saviour did bear our griefs because the pains he took in healing them were so great And here I cannot but observe that Grotius in his Notes on that place continued still in the same mind he was in when he writ against Socinus for he saith Those words may either refer to the diseases of the body and so they note the pains he took in the cure of them or to our sins and so they were fulfilled when Christ by suffering upon the Cross did obtain remission of sins for us as St. Peter saith 1 Pet. 2.24 But upon what reason the Annotations on that place come to be so different from his sense expressed here long after Crellius his answer I do not understand But we are sure he declared his mind as to the main of that Controversie to be the same that it was when he writ his Book which Crellius answered as appears by two Letters of his
〈◊〉 that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment To which I answer That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment may properly be called so but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment For the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself are That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers Now the question is whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins these sufferings of his may deterr us from the practice of sin or no And therefore in opposition to Crellius I shall prove these two things 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins there was a sufficient argument to deterr us from the practice of sin 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our sins they could not have that force to deterr men from the practice of it for he after asserts That Christ's sufferings might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us though they were no punishment of sin 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin is a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hath a great force to deterr men from the practice of sin and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves and because the example is much more considerable than if we had suffered our selves 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed For why are men deterred from sin by seeing others punished but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment and therefore where the same reason holds the same ends may be as properly obtained If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of God's dominion over his life what imaginable force could this have to deterr men from sin which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it But when we say that God laid our iniquities upon him that he suffered not upon his own account but ours that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent what argument can be more proper to deterr men from sin than this is For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honour and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it Hereby they see what a value God hath for his Laws which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son Hereby they see that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government that unless the Honour and Majesty of God as to his Laws and Government maâ— be preserved the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise these sufferings of the Son of God for them for nothing can then remain but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries So that here all the weighty arguments concur which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deterr them from their sins For if God did thus by the green tree what will he do by the dry If he who was so innocent in himself so perfectly holy suffered so much on the account of our sins what then may those expect to suffer who have no innocency at all to plead and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins But if it be replied by Crellius that it is otherwise among men I answer that we do not pretend in all things to parallel the sufferings of Christ for us with any sufferings of men for one another But yet we add that even among men the punishments inflicted on those who were themselves innocent as to the cause of them may be as exemplary as any other And the greater appearance of severity there is in them the greater terror they strike into all offenders As Children's losing their estates and honours or being banished for their Parents treasons in which they had no part themselves Which is a proper punishment on them of their Father's faults whether they be guilty or no and if this may be just in men why not in God If any say that the Parents are only punished in the Children he speaks that which is contradictory to the common sense of mankind for punishment doth suppose sense or feeling of it and in this case the Parents are said to be punished who are supposed to be dead and past feeling of it and the Children who undergo the smart of it must not be said to be punished though all things are so like it that no person can imagine himself in that condition but would think himself punished and severely too If it be said that these are calamities indeed but they are no proper punishments it may easily be shewed that distinction will not hold here Because these punishments were within the design of the Law and were intended for all the ends of punishments and therefore must have the nature of them For therefore the Children are involved in the Father's punishment on purpose to deterr others from the like actions There are some things indeed that Children may fall into by occasion of their Father's guilt which may be only calamities to them because they are neâ—essary consequents in the nature of the thing and not purposely design'd as a punishment to them Thus being deprived of the comfort and assistance of their Parents when the Law hath taken them off by the hand of justice this was designed by the Law as a punishment to the Parents and as to the Children it is only a necessary consequent of their punishment For otherwise the Parents would have been punished for the Childrens faults and not the Children only involved in that which unavoidably follows upon the Parents punishment So that Crellius is very much mistaken either in the present case of our Saviour's punishment or in the general reason of exemplary punishments as among men But the case of our Saviour is more exemplary when we consider the excellency of his person though appearing in our nature when no meaner sufferings would satisfie than of so transcendent a nature as he underwent though he were the Eternal Son of God this must make the punishment much more exemplary than if he were considered only as our Adversaries do as a mere man So that the dignity of his person under all his sufferings may justly add a greater consideration to deterr us from the practice of sin which was so severely punished in him when he was pleased to be a Sacrifice for our sins From whence
hath justly punished some for the sins which they have not committed since all Nations have allowed it just for one man by his own consent to suffer for another since it cannot be unjust for the offender to be released by anothers sufferings if he were admitted to suffer for that end it evidently follows contrary to Crellius his main Principle that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert of his own actions And so that first argument of Crellius cannot hold that one man cannot by his own consent suffer for another because no man can deserve anothers punishment and no punishment is just but what is deserved His second argument from the nature of anger and revenge hath been already answered in the first Discourse about the nature and ends of punishments and his third argument that one mans punishment cannot become anothers immediately before And so we have finished our first consideration of the sufferings of Christ in general as a punishment of our sins which we have shewed to be agreeable both to Scripture and Reason CHAP. IV. I. The Death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin II. What the expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law twofold Civil and Ritual The Promises made to the Iews under the Law of Moses respected them as a People and therefore must be temporal The typical nature of Sacrifices asserted III. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10.17 explained The expiation of uncertain murther proves a substitution IV. A substitution of Christ in our room proved from Christ's being said to die for us the importance of that phrase considered V. In what sense a Surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us VI. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution VII 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 Christ's death a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to it cannot be taken for mere deliverance WE come now to consider the death of Christ as an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind Which is as much denied by our Adversaries as that it was a punishment for our sins For though they do not deny That Christ as a Priest did offer up a Sacrifice of Expiation for the sins of men yet they utterly deny That this was performed on earth or that the Expiation of sins did respect God but only us or that the death of Christ had any proper efficacy towards the expiation of sin any further than as it comprehends in it all the consequences of his death by a strange Catachresis I shall now therefore prove that all things which do belong to a proper Expiatory Sacrifice do agree to the death of Christ. There are three things especially considerable in it 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders 2. An Oblation of it to God 3. An Expiation of sin consequent upon it Now these three I shall make appear to agree fully to the death of Christ for us 1. A Substitution in the place of the Offenders That we are to prove was designed in the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law and that Christ in his death for us was substituted in our place 1. That in the expiatory Sacrifices under the Law there was a Substitution of them in the place of the Offenders This our Adversaries are not willing to yield us because of the correspondency which is so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews between those Sacrifices and that whâ—ch was offered up by Christ. We now speak only of those Sacrifices which we are sure were appointed of old for the expiation of sin by God himself As to which the great rule assigned by the Apostle was That without shedding of blood there was no remission If we yield Crellius what he so often urgeth viz. That these words are to be understood of what was done under the Law They will not be the less serviceable to our purpose for thereby it will appear that the means of Expiation lay in the shedding of blood Which shews that the very mactation of the beast to be sacrificed was designed in order to the Expiation of sin To an inquisitive person the reason of the slaying such multitudes of beasts in the Sacrifices appointed by God himself among the Iews would have appeared far less evident than now it doth since the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath given us so full an account of them For it had been very unreasonable to have thought that they had been merely instituted out of compliance with the customs of other Nations since the whole design of their Religion was to separate them from them and on such a supposition the great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews signifies very little which doth far more explain to us the nature and tendency of all the Sacrifices in use among them that had any respect to the expiation of sins than all the customs of the Egyptians or the Commentaries of the later Iews But I intend not now to discourse at large upon this subject of Sacrifices either as to the nature and institution of them in general or with a particular respect to the Sacrifice of Christ since a learned person of our Church hath already undertaken Crellius upon this Argument and we hope e'er long will oblige the world with the benefit of his pains I shall therefore only insist on those things which are necessary for our purpose in order to the clearing the Substitution of Christ in our sleâ—d for the expiation of our sins by his death and this we say was represented in the expiatory Sacrifices which were instituted among the Iews If we yield Crellius what he after Socinus contends for viz. That the Sacrifice of Christ was only represented in the publick and solemn expiatory Sacrifices for the people and especially those on the day of Atonement We may have enough from them to vindicate all that we assert concerning the expiatory Sacrifice of the blood of Christ. II. For that those were designed by way of Substitution in the place of the offenders will appear from the circumstances and reason of their Institution But before we come to that it will be necessary to shew what that Expiation was which the Sacrifices under the Law were designed for the not understanding of which gives a greater force to our Adversaries Arguments than otherwise they would have For while men assert that the expiation was wholly typical and of the same nature with that expiation which is really obtained by the death of Christ they easily prove That all the expiation then was only
that the commutation is rather imperfect than metaphorical and although he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not of it self imply a commutation yet he grants that the circumstances of the places do imply it 2. He denies that there is any proper surrogation in Christ's dying for us which he saith is such a commutation of persons that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was and if it refers to sufferings then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer he being immediately delivered by the others sufferings And against this kind of surrogation Crellius needed not to have produced any reasons for Grotius never asserted it neither do we say that Christ suffered eternal death for us or that we were immediately freed by his sufferings But that which Grotius asserts that he meant by substitution was this that unless Christ had died for us we must have died our selves and because Christ hath died we shall not die eternally But if this be all saith Crellius he meant by it we grant the whole thing and he complains of it as an injury for any to think otherwise of them If so they cannot deny but that there was a sufficient capacity in the death of Christ to be made an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world But notwithstanding all these fair words Crellius means no more than Socinus did and tho' he would allow the words which Grotius used yet not in the sense he understood them in for Crellius means no more by all this but that the death of Christ was an antecedent condition to the expiation of sins in Heaven Grotius understands by them that Christ did expiate sins by becoming a Sacrifice for them in his death However from hence it appears that our Adversaries can have no plea against the death of Christ's being an expiatory Sacrifice from want of a substitution in our room since they proâ—ess themselves so willing to own such a substitution But if they say that there could be no proper substitution because the death of Christ was a bare condition and no punishment they then express their minds more freely and if these places be allowed to prove a substitution I hope the former discourse will prove that it was by way of punishment Neither is it necessary that the very same kind of punishment be undergone in order to surrogation but that it be sufficient in order to the accomplishing the end for which it was designed For this kind of substitution being in order to the delivery of another by it whatever is sufficient for that end doth make a proper surrogation For no more is necessary to the delivery of another person than the satisfying the ends of the Law and Government and if that may be done by an equivalent suffering though not the same in all respects then it may be a proper surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had died for his Son Absolom it had not been necessary in order to his Son's escape that he had hanged by the hair of his head as his Son did but his death though in other circumstances had been sufficient And therefore when the Lawyers say subrogatum sapit naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur Covarruvias tells us it is to be understood secundum primordialem naturam non secundum accidentalem from whence it appears that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in surrogation but that the nature of the punishment remain the same Thus Christ dying for us to deliver us from death and the curse of the Law he underwent an accursed death for that end although not the very same which we were to have undergone yet sufficient to shew that he underwent the punishment of our iniquities in order to the delivering us from it And if our Adversaries will yield us this we shall not much contend with them about the name of a proper surrogation VI. But in the matter of Redemption or where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Crellius will by no means yield that there was a commutation of persons between Christ and us but all the commutation he will allow here is only a commutation between a thing or a prince and a person Which he therefore asserts that so there may be no necessity of Christ's undergoing the punishment of sin in order to redemption because the price that is to be paid is not supposed to undergo the condition of the person delivered by it Which will evidently appear to have no force at all in case we can prove that a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another for that punishment then comes to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption and he that pays this must be supposed to undergo punishment for it So that the commutation being between the punishment of one and the other redeemed by it here is a proper commutation of persons implied in the payment of the price But hereby we may see that the great subtilty of our Adversaries is designed on purpose to avoid the force of the places of Scripture which are so plain against them For when these places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joyned together are so clear for a substitution that they cannot deny it then they say by it is meant only a commutation of a price for a person but when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is urged to prove a redemption purchased by Christ by the payment of a price for it then they deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a proper price but is only taken metaphorically and yet if it be so taken then there can be no force in what Crellius saith for a bare metaphorical price may be a real punishment Two things I shall then prove against Crellius 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to Christ is to be taken in a proper sense 2. That although it be taken in a proper sense yet it doth not imply a bare commutation of a price and a person but a substitution of one person in the room of another VII Both these will be cleared from the right stating the notion of redemption between our Adversaries and us For they will not by any means have any other proper notion of redemption but from captivity and that by the payment of a price to him that did hold in captivity and therefore because Christ did not pay the price to the Devil there could be no proper sense either of the redemption or the price which was paid for it This is the main strength of all the arguments used by Socinus and Crellius to enervate the force of those places of Scripture which speak of our redemption by Christ and of the price which he paid in order to it But how weak
turned upon the head of that beast And Plutarch adds that after this solemn execration They cut off the head and of old threw it into the River but then gave it to strangers From which custom we observe that in a solemn Sacrifice for expiation the guilt of the offenders was by this rite of execration supposed to be transferred upon the head of the Sacrifice as it was in the Sacrifices among the Jews by the laying on of hands and that nothing was to be eaten of what was supposed to have that guilt transferred upon it From hence all Expiatory Sacrifices were at first whole Burnt-offerings as appears by the Patriarchal Sacrifices and the customs of other Nations and among the Jews themselves as we have already proved in all solemn offerings for the people And although in the sacrifices of private persons some parts were allowed to be eaten by the Priests yet those which were designed for expiation were consumed So that the greater the offering was to God the more it implied the Consumption of the thing which was so offered How strangely improbable then is it That the Oblation of Christ should not as under the Law have respect to his death and sufferings but to his entrance into Heaven wherein nothing is supposed to be consumed but all things given him with far greater power as our Adversaries suppose than ever he had before But we see the Apostle parallels Christ's suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices and his blood with the blood of them and consequently his offering up himself must relate not to his entrance into Heaven but to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world XI From all which it appears how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law Christ is said to offer up himself for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings than by his entrance into Heaven For it is apparent that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend but by our Adversaries own confession Christ's oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven hath no immediate respect at all to the expiation of sin only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins as Crellius saith now let us consider what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For 1. on the very same reason that his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation his death is so too viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation and far more properly so than the other since they make Christ's entrance and power the reward of his sufferings but they never make his sitting at the right hand of God the reward of his entrance into Heaven 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross was his own act but his entrance into Heaven was God's as themselves acknowledge and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be called Christ's offering up himself 3. If it were his own act it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins which his death had for our Adversaries say that his death was by reason of our sins and that he suffered to purge us from sin but his entrance into Heaven was upon his own account to enjoy that power and authority which he was to have at the right hand of God 4. How could Christ's entrance into Heaven be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin when Christ before his entrance into Heaven saith that all power was given to him in Heaven and Earth and the reason assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God gave him is because he humbled himself and became obedient to death even the death of the Cross So that the entrance of Christ into Heaven could not be the means of obtaining that power which was conferred before but the death of Christ is mentioned on that account in Scripture 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High Priest for his entrance into the Holy of Holies was on the account of the blood of the sin-offering which he carried in with him If there were then no expiatory Sacrifice before that was slain for the sins of men Christ could not be said to make any Oblation in Heaven for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain so that if men deny that Christ's death was a proper Sacrifice for sin he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven and Christ could not be said to enter thither as the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacrifice which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ. XII 2. There is as great an inconsistency in making the exercise of Christ's power in Heaven an oblation in any sense as in making Christ's entrance into Heaven to be the Oblation which had correspondency with the Oblations of the Law For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it Hath it any respect to God as all the legal Oblations had no for his intercession and power Crellius saith respect us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the mere exercise of power should be called a Sacrifice What analogy is there at all between them And how could he be then said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood when there was no consideration at all of any Sacrifice offered up to God so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must argue upon strange similitudes and fancy resemblances to himself which it was impossible for the Iews to understand him in who were to judge of the nature of Priesthood and Oblations in a way agreeable to the Institutions among themselves But was it possible for them to understand such Oblations and a Priesthood which had no respect at all to God but wholly to the People and such a entrance into the Holy of Holies without the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the people But such absurdities do men betray themselves into when they are forced to strain express places of Scripture to serve an hypothesis which they think themselves oblig'd to maintain XIII We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mentioned which will easily appear by these brief considerations 1. That the Apostle always speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done so as not to be done again which had been very improper if by the Oblation of Christ he had
reconciled before From whence he would at least have other senses of these words joyned together with the former viz. Either for purging away the filth of sin or for a declaration of a deliverance from guilt and punishment in imitation of the Idiom of the Hebrew in which many words are used in the New Testament From hence it follows that Crellius doth yield the main cause if it appear that Christ did offer up an expiatory Sacrifice to God in his death for then he grants that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being applied to the Sacâ—â—fice of Christ are to be taken for the purging away of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and the punishment of sin And it is to no purpose to say that it is not a proper Sacrifice for if the effects of a proper Sacrifice do belong to it that proves that it is so for these words being acknowledged to be applied to the Sacrifice of Christ by the Author to the Hebrews what could more evince that Christ's was a proper Sacrifice than that those things are attributed to it which by the consent of all Nations are said to belong to proper Sacrifices and that in the very same sense in which they are used by those who understood them in the most proper sense And what reason could Crellius have to say that it was only the superstition of the Heathens which made them attribute such effects to sacrifices when himself acknowledges that the very same sense doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ under that notion and as to the Iews we have already proved that the sense of expiation among them was by vertue of the Law to be taken in as proper a sense as among the Heathens for the purging of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God And why should Crellius deny that effect of the Sacrifice of Christ as to the atonement of God because God's love was seen in giving him who was to offer the Sacrifice since that effect is attributed to those Sacrifices under the Law which God himself appointed to be offered and shewed his great kindness to the people in the Institution of such a way whereby their sins might be expiated and they delivered from the punishment of them But of the consistency of these two I shall speak more afterwards in the effect of the Sacrifices as relating to Persons VI. We now come to consider in what sense the expiation of sins is in Scripture attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ and therein I shall prove these two things 1. That the Expiation is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it is attributed to other Sacrifices and as the words in themselves do signifie 2. That what is so attributed doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ in his death antecedent to his entrance into Heaven 1. That the expiation is to be taken in a proper sense when it is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ. Crellius tells us The controversie is not about the thing viz. whether expiation in the sense we take it in for purging away guilt and aversion of the wrath of God doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ for he acknowledges it doth but all the question is about the manner of it which in the next Section he thus explains There are three senses in which Christ may be said to expiate sins either by begetting Faith in us whereby we are drawn off from the practice of sin in which sense he saith it is a remoter antecedent to it or as it relates to the expiation by actual deliverance from punishment so he saith it is an immediate antecedent to it or as he declares that they are expiated but this he saith doth not so properly relate to Christ as a Sacrifice but as a Priest But never a one of these senses comes near to that which Crellius grants to be the proper importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to a Sacrifice viz. the purging away guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment not any way but by the means of the Sacrifice offered For in the Legal Sacrifices nothing can be more plain than that the expiation was to be by the Sacrifice offered for Atonement supposing then that in some other way which could be by no means proper to those Sacrifices Christ may be said to expiate sins what doth this prove that there was an expiation belonging to his Sacrifice agreeable to the Sacrifices of old But as I urged before in the case of Christ's being High Priest that by their assertions the Iews might utterly deny the force of any argument used by the Author to the Hebrews to prove it so I say as to the expiation by Christ's Sacrifice that it hath no analogy or correspondency at all with any Sacrifice that was ever offered for the expiation of sins For by that they always understood something which was immediately offered to God for that end upon which they obtain'd remission of sins but here is nothing answerable to it in their sense of Christ's Sacrifice for here is no Oblation at all made unto God for this end all the efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ in order to expiation doth wholly and immediately respect us so that if it be a proper Sacrifice to any it must be a Sacrifice to us and not to God for a Sacrifice is always said to be made to him whom it doth immediately respect but Christ in the planting Faith in actual deliverance in declaring to us this deliverance doth wholly respect us and therefore his Sacrifice must be made to men and not to God Which is in it self a gross absurdity and repugnant to the nature and design of Sacrifices from the first institution of them which were always esteemed such immediate parts of divine worship that they ought to respect none else but God as the object to which they were directed though for the benefit and advantage of mankind As well then might Christ be said to pray for us and by that no more be meant but that he doth teach us to understand our duty as be made an expiatory Sacrifice for us and all the effect of it only respect us and not God And this is so far from adding to the perfection of Christ's Sacrifice above the Legal which is the thing pleaded by Crellius that it destroys the very nature of a Sacrifice if such a way of expiation be attributed to it which though conceived to be more excellent in it self yet is wholly incongruous to the end and design of a Sacrifice for Expiation And the excellency of the manner of expiation ought to be in the same kind and not quite of another nature for will any one say that a General of an Army hath a more excellent conduct that all that went before him because he can make finer speeches or that the Assomanaean Family
could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them X. Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christ's sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christ's entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full Power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christ's entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christ's power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. XI I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power of Christ. So that the question is Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us as it was a condition in order to it for in that sence it had no more influence upon it than his birth had but we have already seen that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood of Christ in order to the expiation of sin We do not deny that the death of Christ may be called a condition as the performance of any thing in order to an end may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained but we say that it is not a bare condition but such a one as implies a consideration upon which the thing is obtained being such as answers the end of him that grants it by which means it doth propitiate or atone him who had before just reason to punish but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them who have so highly offended him And in this sense we assert that Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a propitiation for our sins 1 John 2.2 4.10 which we take in the same sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the Sin-offering for atonement Ezek. 44.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall offer a sin-offering for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies and in the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken Ezek. 45.19 and the Ram for Atonement is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 5.8 And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Maccab. 3.33 which is of the greater consequence to us because Crellius would not have the sense either of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament out of the LXX and the Apocryphal Greek in both which we have found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense fully correspondent to what we plead for But he yet urges and takes a great deal of pains to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not always signifie to be appeased by another but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning and sometimes to expiate and then signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be granted proves nothing against us having already proved that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice and that there is
is no reasonable way of interpreting Scripture Do they deny that Christ suffered what we say he did No that they dare not do But they say What he underwent was only Labour and Suffering but not the Punishment of our Iniquities Then I say it could be no Expiatory Sacrifice which implies a Substitution and the contrary appears by the many places of Scripture already mentioned wherein our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ are joined together Thus we see the true Rise of this Controversie was from the many places of Scripture which seem very plain and clear in this matter and therefore I shall now give an account of the Progress of it F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them 1. To those which speak of Christ's being a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us he answers That these Expressions are to be understood only Metaphorically and Christ's Death being an Intervening Condition in order to our Deliverance it is therefore called a Price of Redemption And to the same purpose the Correct Racovian Catechism only there it is added That God did accept of the Death of Christ as a most Acceptable Sacrifice But not by way of Satisfaction or Payment of our Debts because he as a Sacrifice was given by God himself but that he might give us the greater Assurance of Pardon and Eternal Life So that here we have the true state of this matter before us viz. Whether the Death of Christ when it is said to be a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us is only to be looked on as a hard Condition on his side Intervening or as a proper Sacrifice of Atonement which God had appointed for the Expiation of Sins The Question is not Whether God appointed or accepted him for that we have allowed in all Sacrifices of Atonement by the Law of Moses but whether his Sufferings were not required in order to the Satisfaction of Divine Iustice for the Sins of Mankind not by way of strict Payment as in case of Debts but by a Legal Satisfaction to the Justice of God as it is concerned in the Honour of his Laws Our Unitarians grant That Christ was a Ransom and Price of Redemption for us but they deny That he was an Adequate Price or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God But still they run upon the Notion of Debts and Payments as though there were no other Notion of Justice and Satisfaction but between Creditors and Debtors or as if their Notions of these things were rather taken from the Shops than the Schools And the monstrous Contradiction they conclude the charge of our Doctrine with is That God freely Pardons the whole Debt of Sin and yet hath been infinitely over-paid for both in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ. But in the following Discourse I have endeavoured to lay open this Mistake by shewing That Debts and Punishments are of a different Nature and therefore the Satisfaction in one Case is not to be measured by the other But I shall not here anticipate the Reader as to what follows but I shall take notice of what they say which seems to relate to this matter Almighty God say they as King and Proprietor of all Persons and things can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do This is a very strange Assertion For then there is no Obligation on God's part in point of Iustice to punish the most Impenitent and Incorrigible Offenders But there is a great deal of difference between making the Exercise of Punitive or Vindictive Justice necessary upon every Offence and saying that the Iustice of God doth not require that any Offences should be punished The former makes Iustice in God to proceed by a natural Necessity which would leave no place for Mercy nor any Satisfaction by a Mediator for that must suppose Liberty and Relaxation as to the Executive Part of Iustice. And if God must punish Sinners as they deserve there can be no stop to the Execution of Iustice short of Annihilation for our very Beings are the Gift of God which we have deserved to be deprived of But on the other side to say that the Justice of God doth not require the Punishment of any Offences without Repentance or Amendement is to overthrow any such thing as Punitive Justice in God by which I do not mean the actual execution of it and the due measures which belong to it but the Will to punish Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners And that results from his Hatred and Abhorrency of Evil and his just Government of the World For how can any Men who believe that God is really displeased with the Wickedness of Men and that he is a Iust and Righteous Governour ever think that it is not Repugnant to his Iustice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment How can his Hatred of Sin and the Iustice of his Government be reconciled with the Impunity of the most Obstinate Offenders Is there no such thing as Iustice to himself and to his Laws which lies in a just Vindication of his Honour and of his Laws from Contempt And who can be guilty of greater Contempt of him than those who persist in their Wickedness without Repentance or Amendment And after all Is it not contrary to his Justice to forgive such as these because he is absolute Lord and Proprietor of all Persons and Things This might signifie something if we could imagine God to be nothing but Almighty Power without Justice but if his Justice be as Essential an Attribute as his Omnipotency we must not so much as suppose the Exercise of one without the other But they do not deny That it is inconsistent with the Wisdom and Holiness of God to let the Incorrigible and Impenitent escape unpunished or to forgive Sin without Repentance or Amendment But if the Wisdom and Holiness of God will not permit the Impunity of Impenitent Sinners is it not just in God to punish them Not barely as to the Degree and Desert of Punishment but as to the Will of Punishing them according to their merits Whence doth their Punishment come Is it not from the Will of God Is that Will just or not If the Will to punish be just whence comes it to be so From the Wisdom and Holiness of God Then Punitive Justice when it is agreeable to God's Wisdom and Holiness is a proper Divine Attribute as well as they And they must have strange Notions of Punitive Justice who would separate it from them But Justice they say hath no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplac'd and that it do not exceed the Offence We are far from denying these things to belong to the Measures in the Exercise of Punitive Justice But whence comes Punitive
Justice to belong to God Is it not because it is just in him to punish Offenders according to those measures And whence comes this but from that Universal Justice in God which is always joyned with his Wisdom and Holiness and implies an Universal Rectitude in all he doth And from thence it comes that all the Measures of Iustice are observed by him in the Punishment of the greatest Offenders Now this Universal Justice in God is that whereby he not only punishes Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners but he takes care of preserving the Honour of his Laws And therefore although Almighty God out of his great Mercy were willing that Penitent Sinners should be forgiven yet it was most agreeable thereto that it should be done in such a manner as to discourage Mankind from the practice of Sin by the same way by which he offers Forgiveness and for this end it pleased God in his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to send his Son to become a Sacrifice of Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind which being freely undertaken by him there was no breach in the Measures of Punitive Justice with respect to him and so by his Death he offered up himself as a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind And this is that Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ which we own and defend But these bold Assertions That God as absolute Lord may forgive all Offences without Repentance and it is not contrary to his Justice so to do that it is not the Justice of God which prompts him to punish Sinners arise from too mean and narrow a Conception of Divine Justice as though it lay only in the manner of the Execution of it But that there is an Essential Attribute of Justice belonging to the Divine Nature appears from hence that there are some things which are so disagreeable to the Divine Nature that he cannot do them he cannot break his Promises nor deceive Mankind to their Destruction he cannot deny himself nor pervert that Order or due Respects of things to each other which he hath established in the World He cannot make it the Duty of Mankind to dishonour their Maker or to violate the Rules of Good and Evil so as to make Evil Good and Good Evil he cannot make Murder and Adultery to be Virtues nor Impiety and Wickedness not to deserve Punishment But whence comes all this Is it that God wants Almighty Power to do what he pleases No doubt he is supreme Lord over all and hath all things under his Will But there is an Essential Iustice in God which is a supreme Rule of Righteousness according to which he doth always exercise his Power and Will And so Moses saith of him All his ways are perfect a God of Truth and without Iniquity just and right is he and the Psalmist The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works He not only is so but he can be no otherwise for this Vniversal Righteousness is as great a Perfection and Attribute of God as his Wisdom or Power It is not one Name which stands for all but it is a real and distinct Attribute of it self It is as a Rule and Measure to the Exercise of the rest And he particularly shews it in all the Acts of Punitive Iustice So Nehemiah Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us for thou hast done right but we have done wickedly And Daniel Righteousness belongeth unto thee but unto us confusion of Face For the Lord our God is righteous in all his Works which he doth for we obey'd not his Voice And Zephaniah The just Lord is in the midst thereof he will not do Iniquity From whence it appears that the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is according to the Essential Iustice or Righteousness of the Divine Nature And so Abraham pleaded with God Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right i. e. Will he not punish according to the Righteousness of his Nature And so Abimelech argues from the natural Notion he had of Godâ—s righteous Nature Lord wilt thou slay also a righteous Nation But here the main Difficulty which deserves to be cleared is this How far Punitive Justice is founded on that Universal Justice which is an Essential Attribute of God For the want of understanding this hath been the great occasion of so much Confusion in the Discourses about this matter And for the clearing of it these things must be considered 1. That there is a difference between that Iustice in God whereby he hates Sin and that whereby he punishes the Sinner The hatred of Sin doth necessarily follow the Perfection of his Nature Therefore God is said To hate the Wicked and Evil to be an Abomination to him to love Righteousness and to hate Wickedness But if the Punishment of the Offender were as necessarily consequent as his Hatred of Sin all Mankind must suffer as they offend and there would be no place for Mercy in God nor for Repentance in Men. But Sin in it self is perfectly hatefull to God there being nothing like God in it but Man was God's Creature and made after his Image and Likeness and however God be displeased with Mankind on the account of Sin yet the Workmanship of God still remains and we continually see that God doth not exercise his Punitive Iustice according to the Measures of their Iniquities And they who plead most for the necessity of Punitive Iustice are themselves a Demonstration to the contrary for they cannot deny that they are not punished as their Iniquities have deserved And if Punitive Iustice be necessary in it self it must reach the Persons that have deserved to be punished if there be no Relaxation of the Severity of it 2. That it is very agreeable to the Divine Justice to exercise the Severity of Punitive Iustice on obstinate and incorrigible Offenders And this is that whereon the Iustice of the Punishments of Sinners in another World is founded because God hath been so mercifull to them here and used so many ways to reclaim them and it is the Not exercising his Punitive Iustice upon them in this World which makes it so much more reasonable in another For thereby they have shewed their Contempt of God and his Laws of his offers of Mercy and their wilfull obstinacy in offending him And the reasonableness of the Punishment of such Offenders is not denyed by any of our more Learned Adversaries as I have shewed in the following Discourse from Socinus and Crellius and might do from several others But I need not mention any more since in the late Correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism there is this Note That they have always asserted that the Wicked shall be raised up at the great Day to undergo the Punishment of their Sins and to be cast into the Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels And for this
use of the Concession of Crellius That God hath prefixed some ends to himself in the Government of mankind which being supposed it is necessary that impenitent sinners should be punished What these ends of God are he before tells us when he enquires into the ends of Divine punishments which he makes to be security for the future by mens avoiding sins and a kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pleasure which God takes in the destruction of his implacable enemies and the asserting and vindicating his own right by punishing and shewing men thereby with what care and fear they ought to serve him and so attains the ends of punishment proposed by Lactantius and manifestation of the Divine Honour and Majesty which hath been violated by the sins of men All these we accept of with this caution That the delight which God takes in the punishing his implacable enemies be not understood of any pleasure in their misery as such by way of meer revenge but as it tends to the vindication of his Right and Honour and Majesty which is an end suitable to the Divine Nature but the other cannot in it self have the notion of an end for an end doth suppose something desirable for it self which surely the miseries of others cannot have to us much less to the Divine Nature And that place which Crellius insists on to prove the contrary Deut. 28.63 The Lord will rejoyce over you to destroy you imports no more than the satisfaction God takes in the execution of his Justice when it makes most for his honour as certainly it doth in the punishment of his greatest enemies And this is to be understood in a sense agreeable to those other places where God is said not to delight in the death of sinners which doth not as Crellius would have it meerly express God's benignity and mercy but such an agreeableness of the exercise of those attributes to God's nature that he neither doth nor can delight in the miseries of his creatures in themselves but as they are subservient to the ends of his Government and yet such is his kindness in that respect too that he useth all means agreeable thereto to make them avoid being miserable to advance his own glory And I cannot but wonder that Grotius who had asserted the contrary in his Book of Satisfaction should in his Books De Iure belli ac pacis assert That when God punisheth wicked men he doth it for no other end but that he might punish them For which he makes use of no other arguments than those which Crellius had objected against him viz. The delight God takes in punishing and the judgments of the life to come when no amendment can be expected the former hath been already answered the latter is objected by Crellius against him when he makes the ends of punishment merely to respect the community which cannot be asserted of the punishments of another Life which must chiefly respect the vindication of God's glory in the punishment of unreclaimable sinners And this we do not deny to be a just punishment since our Adversaries themselves as well as we make it necessary But we are not to understand that the end of Divine punishments doth so respect the community as though God himself were to be excluded out of it for we are so to understand it as made up of God as the Governour and mankind as the persons governed whatever then tends to the vindication of the rights of God's Honour and Sovereignty tends to the good of the whole because the manifestation of that end is so great an end of the whole XII But withal though we assert in the life to come the ends of punishment not to be the reclaiming of sinners who had never undergone them unless they had been unreclaimable yet a vast difference must be made between the ends of punishments in that and in this present state For the other is the Reserve when nothing else will do and therefore was not primarily intended but the proper ends of punishment as a part of Government are to be taken from the design of them in this life And here we assert that God's end in punishing is the advancing his Honour not by the meer miseries of his creatures but that men by beholding his severity against sin should break off the practice of it that they may escape the punishments of the future state So that the ends of punishment here are quite of another kind from those of another life for those are inflicted because persons have been unreclaimable by either the mercies or punishments of this life but these are intended that men should so far take notice of this severity of God as to avoid the sins which will expose them to the wrath to come And from hence it follows That whatsoever sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine punishments and are inflicted on the account of sin have the proper notion of punishments in them and God may accept of the undergoing them as a full satisfaction to his Law if they be such as tend to break men off from sin and assert God's right and vindicate his Honour to the world which are the ends assigned by Crellius and will be of great consequence to us in the following Discourse CHAP. II. I. The particular state of the Controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries II. The debate reduced to two heads The first concerning Christâ—s sufferings being a punishment for sin entred upon In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. III. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture The importance of the phrase of bearing sins IV. Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness V. 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 VI. Crellius his sense examined VII Isa. 53.11 vindicated The argument from Matt. 8.17 answered Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place VIII Isa. 53.5 6 7. cleared IX Whether Christ's 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 X. That God's hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ unless they were a punishment of sin proved against Crellius XI 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 XII 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
meant meritorious or such upon supposition of which he ought to die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as tho' this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the caâ—â—es of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if â—ny other way could be thought suffiâ—â—ent to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of Atonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a two-fold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Atonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate depends for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment then our Adversaries grant that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it For the clearing of this I shall prove these two things 1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin but this 2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God III. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to our sins but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them Such are those which speak of Christ bearing our sins of our iniquities being laid upon him of his making himself an offering for sin and being made sin and a curse for us and of his dying for our sins All which I shall so far consider as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them 1. Those which speak of Christ's bearing our sins As to which we shall consider First The importance of the phrase in general of bearing sin and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute For the importance of the phrase Socinus acknowledges that it generally signifies bearing the punishment of sin in Scripture but that sometimes it signifies taking away The same is confessed by Crellius but he saith it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment but it is enough says he that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins may be said to bear our sins And for this sense he quotes Numb 14.33 And your Children shall wander in the Wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms until your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness Whereby saith he it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites but that by the occasion of their parents sins they should undergo that trouble in wandring in the Wilderness and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined setting aside a total destruction a greater instance of God's severity than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered Is it not said that God did swear in his wrath they should not enter into his rest Surely then the debarring them so long of that rest was an instance of God's wrath and so according to his own principles must
ascend well but doth that word signifie taking away No not constantly for it is frequently used for a sacrifice But doth it at any time signifie so Yes it signifies the removal of a thing from one place to another Is that the sense then he contends for here No but how then why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it signifies too a bare removal as Ezra 1.11 yet Psal. 102. 25. it is used for cutting off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebr. is make me not to ascend in the midst of my days But doth it here signifie utter destruction I suppose not but grant it what is this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the LXX useth not that word here which for all that we know was purposely altered so that at last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far enough from any such signification as Crellius would fix upon it unless he will assert that Christ taking away our sins was only a removal of them from Earth to Heaven But here Grotius comes in to the relief of Crellius against himself for in his Notes upon this place though he had before said that the word was never used in the New Testament in that sense yet he there saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abstulit for which he referrs us to Heb. 9.28 where he proceeds altogether as subtilly as Crellius had done before him for he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 14.33 Deut. 14.24 Isa. 53.12 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 10.17 Numb 14.18 A most excellent way of interpreting Scripture considering the various significations of the Hebrew words and above all of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here mentioned For according to this way of arguing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all these and is rendred by them in the Greek Version so that by the same way that Grotius proves that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to take away but to bear punishment nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the bearing punishment in the strictest sense Ezek. 16 5◠54. and bearing sin in that sense Ezek. 16.58 Thou hast born thy leudness and thy abominations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more frequently used in this than in the other sense why shall its signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at any time make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in the same sense with that Nay I do not remember in any place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with sin but it signifies the punishment of it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 19.8 to bear his iniquity Lev. 20.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearing their iniquity in one verse is explained by being cut off from among their people in the next And in the places cited by Grotius that Numb 14.33 hath been already shewed to signifie bearing the punishment of sin and that Deut. 14.24 is plainly understood of a Sacrifice the other Isa. 53.12 will be afterwards made appear by other places in the same Chapter to signifie nothing to this purpose So that for all we can yet see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken either for bearing our sins as a sacrifice did under the Law or the punishment of them in either sense it serves our purpose but is far enough from our Adversaries meaning VI. But supposing we should grant them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie to take away let us see what excellent sense they make of these words of St. Peter Do they then say that Christ did take away our sins upon the Cross No they have a great care of that for that would make the expiation of sins to have been performed there which they utterly deny and say that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven that there he might expiate sins But doth not S◠Peter say that what was done by him here was in his body on the tree and they will not say he carried that with him to Heaven too Well but what then was the taking away of sin which belonged to Christ upon the Cross is it only to perswade men to live vertuously and leave off their sins This Socinus would have and Crellius is contented that it should be understood barely of taking away sins and not of the punishment of them but only by way of accession and consequence but if it be taken which he inclines more to for the punishment then he saith it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ but of the effect and yet a little after he saith those words of Christ bearing our sins are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it not including the effect of it in us not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death but that he did that by dying upon which the taking away of sin would follow or which had a great power for the doing it So uncertain are our Adversaries in affixing any sense upon these words which may attribute any effect at all to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins then they are only to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ to perswade men to leave their sins which we must have a care of understanding so as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it but only that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him and if we obey him we shall leave off our sins whether Christ had died or no supposing his miracles had the same effect on us which those of Moses had upon the Iews which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death But if this be all that was meant by Christ's bearing our sins in his body on the tree why might not St. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his Cross too for his death was an excellent example of patience and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth and that doctrine which he preached was repentance and remission of sins So that by this sense there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ. But taking the other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment of sin to the death of Christ on the Cross
to Vossius not long since published and he utterly disowns the charge of Socinianism as a calumny in his discussion the last Book he ever writ VIII But we are no further obliged to vindicate Grotius than he did the truth which we are sure he did in the vindication of the 53 of Isaiah from Socinus his interpretations notwithstanding what Crellius hath objected against him We therefore proceed to other Verses in the same Chapter insisted on by Grotius to prove that Christ did bear the punishments of our sins v. 6 7. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all It is required and he was afflicted as Grotius renders those words Socinus makes a twofold sense of the former clause the first is That God by or with Christ did meet with our iniquities the latter That God did make our iniquities to meet with Christ. The words saith Grotius will not bear the former interpretation for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in Hiphil must import a double action and so it must not be That God by him did meet with our sins but that God did make our sins to meet upon him To which Crellius replies That words in Hiphil are sometimes used intransitively but can he produce any instance in Scripture where this word joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken for in the last verse of the Chapter the construction is different And what an uncertain way of interpreting Scripture will this be if every Anomalous signification and rare use of a word shall be made use of to take away such a sense as is most agreeable to the design of the place For that sense we contend for is not only enforced upon the most natural importance of these words but upon the agreeableness of them with so many other expressions of this Chapter that Christ did bear our iniquities and was wounded for our transgressions and that his soul was made an offering for sin to which it is very suitable that as the iniquities of the people were as it were laid upon the head of the Sacrifice so it should be said of Christ who was to offer up himself for the sins of the world And the Iews themselves by this phrase do understand the punishment either for the sins of the people which Iosias underwent or which the people themselves suffered by those who interpret this prophecy of them To which purpose Aben Ezra observes that iniquity is here put for the punishment of it as 1 Sam. 28.10 and Lam. 4.6 But Socinus mistrusting the incongruity of this Interpretation flies to another viz. That God did make our iniquities to meet with Christ And this we are willing to admit of if by that they mean That Christ underwent the punishment of them as that phrase must naturally import for what otherwise can our iniquities meeting with him signifie For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken properly as Socinus acknowledgeth it ought to be when he rejects Pagnin's Interpretation of making Christ to interceed for our iniquities signifies either to meet with one by chance or out of kindness or else for an encounter with an intention to destroy that which it meets with So Iudg. 8.21 Rise thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX irrue in nos fall upon us i e. run upon us with thy sword and kill us Iudg. 15.12 Swear unto me that ye will not fall upon me your selves where the same word is used and they explain the meaning of it in the next words v. 13. We will not kill thee Amos 5.19 as if a man did flee from a Lyon and a Bear met him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. with a design to kill him Now I suppose they will not say that our sins met with Christ by Chance since it is said that God laid on him c. not out of kindness it must be therefore out of enmity and with a design to destroy him and so our sins cannot be understood as Socinus and Crellius would have them as the meer occasions of Christ's death but as the proper impulsive cause of it Whether the following word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken with a respect to sin and so it properly signifies It is required or with a respect to the person and so it may signifie he was oppressed is not a matter of that consequence which we ought to contend about if it be proved that Christ's oppression had only a respect to sin as the punishment of it Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter v. 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed In which Grotius saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie any kind of affliction but such as hath the nature of punishment either for example or instruction but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ the former must Crellius thinks to escape from this by acknowledging that the sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin but if it be such a respect to sin which makes what Christ underwent a punishment which is only proper in this case it is as much as we contend for This therefore he is loth to abide by and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin which he thinks to prove from St. Paul's words 2 Cor. 6.9 We are chastised but not given over to death but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened did not think they did it without any respect to a fault but they supposed them to be justly punished and this is that we plead for that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it 2. This is far from the present purpose for the chastisement there mention'd is opposed to death as chastened but not killed whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death that these cannot be supposed to be meerly designed for instruction and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment The other place Psal. 73.14 is yet more remote from the business for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God as not to deserve chastisement from him IX But Crellius offers further to prove that Christ's death must be considered as a bare affliction and not as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplary punishment because in such a punishment the guilty themselves are to be punished and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty but in Christ's sufferings it was quite contrary for the innocent was punished and the guilty have the benefit of it and yet he saith if we should grant that Christ's sufferings were a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
we see that the ends of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are very agreeable with the sufferings of Christ considered as a punishment of sin X. We now consider whether as Crellius asserts supposing Christ's death were no punishment it could have these effects upon mens minds or no Yes he saith it might because by his sufferings we might see how severely God would punish wicked and obstinate persons Which being a strange riddle at the first hearing it viz. that by the sufferings of an innocent person without any respect to sin as the cause of them we should discern God's severity against those who are obstinate in sin we ought the more diligently to attend to what is said for the clearing of it First saith he If God spared not his own most innocent and holy and only Son than whom nothing was more dear to him in Heaven or Earth but exposed him to so cruel and ignominious a death how great and severe sufferings may we think God will inflict on wicked men who are at open defiance with him I confess my self not subtle enough to apprehend the force of this argument viz. If God dealt so severely with him who had no sin either of his own or others to answer for therefore he will deal much more severely with those that have For God's severity considered without any respect to sin gives rather encouragement to sinners than any argument to deterr them from it For the natural consequence of it is that God doth act arbitrarily without any regard to the good or evil of mens actions and therefore it is to no purpose to be sollicitous about them For upon the same account that the most innocent person suffers most severely from him for all that we know the more we strive to be innocent the more severely we may be dealt with and let men sin they can be but dealt severely with all the difference then is one shall be called punishments and the other calamities but the severity may be the same in both And who would leave off his sins meerly to change the name of punishments into that of calamities And from hence it will follow that the differences of good and evil and the respects of them to punishment and reward are but airy and empty things but that God really in the dispensation of things to men hath no regard to what men are or do but acts therein according to his own Dominion whereby he may dispose of men how or which way he pleases If a Prince had many of his Subjects in open rebellion against him and he should at that time make his most obedient and beloved Son to be publickly exposed to all manner of indignities and be dishonoured and put to death by the hands of those rebels could any one imagine that this was designed as an exemplary punishment to all rebels to let them see the danger of rebellion No but would it not rather make them think him a cruel Prince one that would punish innocency as much as rebellion and that it was rather better to stand at defiance and become desperate for it was more dangerous to be beloved than hated by him to be his Son than his declared Enemy so that insisting on the death of Christ as it is considered as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of that we speak now there is no comparison between our Adversaries hypothesis and ours but saith Crellius the consequence is not good on our side if Christ suffered the punishment of our sins therefore they shall suffer much more who continue in sin for Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world but they suffer only for their own and what they have deserved themselves To which I answer that the argument is of very good force upon our hypothesis though it would not be upon theirs For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffered then there could be no argument drawn from his sufferings to ours but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere that the dignity of the person is to be considered in exemplary punishment and that a lesser punishment of one that is very great may do much more to deterr men from sin than a greater punishment of one much less But he yet further urgeth that the severity of God against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ because God's hatred against sin is discovered therein But if we ask how God's hatred against sin is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin and not rather his hatred of innocency if no respect to sin were had therein he answers That God's hatred against sin was manifested in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin For answer to which we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin and let any one tell me what hatred of sin can possibly be discovered in proposing the sufferings of a most innocent person to them without any consideration of sin as the cause of those sufferings If it be said That the Doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin and that God suffered his Son to die to confirm this Doctrine and thereby shewed his hatred to sin I answer 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business for we are not now arguing about the design of Christ's Doctrine nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that but as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them to draw us from sin by discovering God's hatred to it 2. The Doctrine of Christ according to their hypothesis discovers much less of God's hatred to sin than ours doth For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives if there be no such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin commiâ—ted if the punishment of sin depend barely upon God's will and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering as the most guilty let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much God's abhorrency of sin as asserting the necessity of vindicating God's honour to the World upon the breach of his Laws if not by the suffering of the offenders
themselves yet of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the expiation of sin by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities so as upon consideration of his sufferings he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins and eternal life So that if the discovery of God's hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it we assert upon the former reasons that much more is done upon our Doctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ than can be upon theirs So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christ's death may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this doth imply that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin XI The next Series of places which makes Christ's sufferings to be a punishment for sin are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us which we now design to make clear ought to be understood in no other sense for as Grotius saith As the Iews sometimes use sin for the punishment of sin as appears besides other places by Zach. 14. â—9 Gen. 4.13 so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin by the name of sin as the Latins use the word Piaculum both for the fault and for him that suffers for it Thence under the Law an expiatory Sacrifice for sin was called sin Lev. 4.3.29 5 6. Psal. 40.7 Which way of speaking Esaias followed speaking of Christ Isai. 53.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made his soul sin i. e. liable to the punishment of it To the same purpose St. Paul 2 Cor. 5.21 He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him To which Crellius replies That as there is no necessity that by the name of sin when applied to sufferings any more should be implied than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin no more is there when it is applied to the person nay much less for he saith No more is required to this but that he should be handled as sinners use to be and undergo the matter of punishment without any respect to sin either as the cause or occasion of it So he saith The name Sinner is used 1 King 1.21 and in St. Paul the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood as of righteousness in the latter and as we are said to be righteousness in him when God deals with us as with righteous persons so Christ was said to be sin for us when he was dealt with as a sinner And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so called not with a respect to the punishment of sin but because they were offered upon the account of sin and were used for taking away the guilt of it or because men were bound to offer them so that they sinned if they neglected it So that all that is meant by Esaias and St. Paul is That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners only by right undergo But let Crellius or any others of them tell me if the Scripture had intended to express that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins how was it possible to do it more emphatically than it is done by these Expressions the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered not only by saying that Christ did bear our sins but that himself was made sin for us those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin Let them produce any one instance in Scripture where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin that place 1 King 1.21 is very far from it for in all probability the design of Bathsheba in making Solomon King was already discovered which was the reason that Adonijah his elder Brother declaring himself King invited not him with the rest of the King's sons All that she had for Solomon's succession was a secret promise and oath of David and therefore she urgeth him now to declare the succession v. 20. Otherwise she saith when David should die I and my son Solomon shall be accounted offenders i. e. saith Crellius we shall be handled as offenders we shall be destroyed But surely not without the supposition of a fault by them which should inflict that punishment upon them The plain meaning is they should be accused of Treason and then punished accordingly But we are to consider that still with a respect to them who were the inflicters a fault or sin is supposed as the reason of their punishment either of their own or others But of our Saviour it is not said That he should be counted as an offender by the Iews for although that doth not take away his innocency yet it supposeth an accusation of something which in it self deserves punishment But in Esai 53.10 it is said He made his soul sin and 2 Cor. 5.21 That God made him sin for us which must therefore imply not being dealt with by men only as a sinner but that with a respect to him who inflicted the punishment there was a consideration of sin as the reason of it We do not deny but God's suffering him to be dealt with as a sinner by men is implied in it for that was the method of his punishment designed but we say further that the reason of that permission in God doth suppose some antecedent cause of it For God would never have suffered his only Son to be so dealt with by the hands of cruel men unless he had made himself an offering for sin being willing to undergo those sufferings that he might be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world And although Socinus will not yield That by being made sin for us should be understood Christ's being an expiatory Sacrifice for sin yet Crellius is contented it should be so taken in both places Which if he will grant so as by vertue of that Sacrifice the guilt of sin is expiated we shall not contend with him about the reasons why those Sacrifices were called sins although the most proper and genuine must needs be that which is assigned by the Law that the sins of the people were supposed to be laid upon them and therefore they were intended for the expiation of them But it is very unreasonable to say That expiatory Sacrifices were called sins because it would have been a sin to neglect them For on the same account all the other Sacrifices must have been called so too for it was a sin to neglect any where God required them and so there had been no difference between Sacrifices for sin and others To that reason of Crellius from our being made righteous because dealt with as such to Christ's being made sin only because dealt with as a sinner we need no more than what this parallel will afford us For as Crellius would never say that any are dealt with as
righteous persons who are not antecedently supposed to be so by his own Argument Christ being dealt with as a sinner must suppose guilt antecedent to it and since the Apostle declares it was not his own in those words Who knew no sin it follows that it must be the consideration of ours which must make him be dealt with as a sinner by him who made him to be sin for us But to suppose that Christ should be said to be made sin without any respect to sin is as much as if the Latins should call any one Scelus and mean thereby a very honest man or a Piaculum without any supposition of his own or others guilt But we are to consider that the sufferings of Christ seeming at first so inconsistent with that relation to God as his only Son which the Apostles assert concerning him they were obliged to vindicate his innocency as to men and yet withal to shew that with a respect to God there was sufficient reason for his permission of his undergoing these sufferings That he knew no sin was enough to clear his innocency as to men but then the question will be asked If he were so innocent why did God suffer all those things to come upon him Did not Abraham plead of old with God That he would not slay the righteous with the wicked because it was repugnant to the righteousness of his nature to do so That be far from thee to do after this manner to slay the righteteous with the wicked and that the righteous should be as the wicked that be far from thee shall not the Iudge of all the Earth do right How then comes God to suffer the most perfect innocency to be dealt with so as the greatest sins could not have deserved worse from men Was not his righteousness the same still And Abraham did not think the distinction of calamities and punishments enough to vindicate God's proceedings if the righteous should have been dealt withal as the wicked And if that would hold for such a measure of righteousness as might be supposed in such who were not guilty of the great abominations of those places that it should be enough not only to deliver themselves but the wicked too how comes it that the most perfect obedience of the Son of God is not sufficient to excuse him from the greatest sufferings of Malefactors But if his sufferings had been meerly from men God had been accountable only for the bare permission but it is said that he fore-ordained and determined these things to be that Christ himself complained that God had forsaken him and here that he made him sin for us and can we imagine all this to be without any respect to the guilt of sin as the cause of it Why should such an expression be used of being made sin might not many others have served sufficiently to declare the indignities and sufferings he underwent without such a phrase as seems to reflect upon Christ's innocency If there had been no more in these expressions than our Adversaries imagine the Apostles were so careful of Christ's honour they would have avoided such ill-sounding expressions as these were and not have affected Hebraisms and uncouth forms of speech to the disparagement of their Religion But this is all which our Adversaries have to say where words are used by them out of their proper sense That the Prophets and Apostles affected tricks of wit playing with words using them sometimes in one sense and presently quite in another So Crellius saith of Isaiah That he affects little elegancies of words and verbal allusions which makes him use words sometimes out of their proper and natural sense thence he tells us The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them And from this liberty of interpreting they make words without any other reason than that they serve for their purpose be taken in several senses in the same verse For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohn's Gospel makes the World to be taken in three several senses He was in the World there it is taken saith he for the men of the World in general The world was made by him there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel and the world knew him not there it must be taken in neither of the former senses but for the wicked of the world What may not one make of the Scripture by such a way of interpreting it But by this we have the less reason to wonder that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree In which he doth acknowledge by the curse in the first clause to be meant the punishment of sin but not in the second And the reason he gives for it is amavit enim Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse St. Paul affected playing with the word curse understanding it first in a proper and then a Metaphorical sense But it is plain that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically when he saith that Christ was made a curse for us i. e. by a bare allusion of the name without a correspondency in the thing it self and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse but was not so But St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us He therefore tells us what it was which Christ did redeem us from The curse of the Law and how he did it by being not only made a curse but a curse for us i. e. not by being hateful to God or undergoing the very same curse which we should have done which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense but that the death of Christ was to be considered not as a bare separation of soul and body but as properly poenal being such a kind of death which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of the Law of God And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal therefore the intention of the punishment could reach no further than the Law did but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham That it should come upon the Gentiles also and withal those whom the Apostle speaks to were not Iews but such as thought they ought to joyn the
Law and Gospel together that St Paul doth not mean as Crellius would have it that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant and so take away the obligation of the Law for to what end was the curse mentioned for that What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins whether inforced by the Law of Moses or the Law written in their hearts which tells the consciences of sinners that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death and therefore under the curse of the Law XII We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ do imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin Not that we insist on the force of those particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though of themselves they did imply this for we know they are of various significations according to the nature of the matter they are joyned with but that these being joyned with sins and suffering together do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins Thus it is said of Christ that he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which Crellius replies That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end but if it should be granted that those phrases being joyned with sufferings do always imply a meritorious cause yet it doth not follow it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it To this a short answer will at present serve for It is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give If it had been said in the plainest terms that Christ's death was a punishment for our sins they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these they would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them and though punishment were sometimes used properly yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine he tells us plainly That if our Doctrine were not only once but frequently mentioned in Scripture yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose For saith he seeing the thing it self cannot be I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words and draw forth such a sense from them as is most consistent with itself and the tenor of the Scripture But for all his talking of the tenor of the Scripture by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms he will do many and so the tenor of the Scripture shall be never against him and by this we find that the main strength of our Adversaries is not pretended to lie in the Scriptures all the care they have of them is only to reconcile them if possible with their hypothesis for they do not deny but that the natural force of the words doth imply what we contend for but because they say the Doctrine we assert is inconsistent with reason therefore all their design is to find out any other possible meaning which they therefore assert to be true because more agreeable to the common reason of mankind This therefore is enough for our present purpose that if it had been the design of Scripture to have expressed our sense it could not have done it in plainer expressions than it hath done that no expressions could have been used but the same arts of our Adversaries might have been used to take off their force which they have used to those we now urge against them and that setting aside the possibility of the thing the Scripture doth very fairly deliver the Doctrine we contend for or supposing in point of reason there may be arguments enough to make it appear possible there are Scriptures enough to make it appear true CHAP. III. I. 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 lie in the greatness of Christ's 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 II. The cases wherein Crellius allows it instanced From whence it is proved that he yields the main cause III. 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 IV. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions V. An answer to Crellius his Objections What it is to suffer undeservedly Crellius his mistake in the state of the question VI. The instances of Scripture considered In what sense Children are punished for their Parents sins VII Ezek. 18.20 explained at large VIII Whether the guilty being freed from the sufferings of an innocent person makes that punishment unjust or no Crellius 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 I. HAving gained so considerable concessions from our Adversaries concerning the places of Scripture we come now to debate the matter in point of reason And if there appear to be nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing or
therefore generally punisheth the whole Family or People 3. That which may be a meer exercise of dominion as to some may be a proper punishment to others as in the case of Infants being taken away for their Parents sins For God as to the Children he saith useth only an act of dominion but the punishment only redounds to the Parents who lose them and though this be done for the very end of punishment yet he denies that it hath the nature of Punishment in any but the Parents 4. That punishment may be intended for those who can have no sense at all of it as Crellius asserts in the case of Saul's sons 2 Sam. 21.8 14. that the punishment was mainly intended for Saul who was already dead From these concessions of Crellius in this case we may take notice 1. That a remote conjunction may be sufficient for a translation of penalty viz. from one Generation to another 2. That sins may be truly said to be punished in others when the offenders themselves may escape punishment thus the sins of Parents in their Children and Princes in their Subjects 3. That an act of dominion in some may be designed as a proper punishment to others 4. That the nature of punishment is not to be measured by the sense of it Now upon these concessions though our Adversaries will not grant that Christ was properly punished for our sins yet they cannot deny but that we may very properly be said to be punished for our sins in Christ and if they will yield us this the other may be a strife about words For surely there may be easily imagined as great a conjunction between Christ and us as between the several Generations of the Iews and that last which was punished in the destruction of Ierusalem and though we escape that punishment which Christ did undergo yet we might have our sins punished in him as well as Princes theirs in their Subjects when they escape themselves or rather as Subjects in an innocent Prince who may suffer for the faults of his people if it be said that these are acts of meer dominion as to such a one that nothing hinders but granting it yet our sins may be said to be punished in him as well as Parents sins are punished properly in meer acts of dominion upon their Children if it be said that can be no punishment where there is no sense at all of it that is fully taken off by Crellius for surely we have as great a sense of the sufferings of Christ as the first Generation of the Iews had of the sufferings of the last before the fatal destruction of the City or as Saul had of the punishment of his Sons after his death So that from Crellius his own concessions we have proved that our sins may very properly be said to be punished in Christ although he will not say that Christ could be properly punished for our sins nay he and the rest of our Adversaries not only deny it but earnestly contend that it is very unjust to suppose it and repugnant to the rectitude of God's nature to do it III. And so we come to consider the mighty arguments that are insisted on for the proof of this which may be reduced to these three viz. 1. That there can be no punishment but what is deserved but no man can deserve that another should be punished 2. That punishment flows from revenge but there can be no revenge where there hath been no fault 3. That the punishment of one cannot any ways be made the punishment of another and in case it be supposed possible then those in whose stead the other is punished must be actually delivered upon the payment of that Debt which was owing to God 1. That one man cannot deserve anothers punishment and therefore one cannot be punished for another for there is no just punishment but what is deserved This being the main Argument insisted on by Crellius must be more carefully considered but before an answer be made to it it is necessary that a clear account be given in what sense it is he understands it which will be best done by laying down his principles as to the justice of punishments in a more distinct method than himself hath done which are these following 1. That no person can be justly punished either for his own or anothers faults but he that hath deserved to be punished by some sin of his own For he still asserts That the justice of punishment ariseth from a mans own fault though the actual punishment may be from anothers But he that is punished without respect to his own guilt is punished undeservedly and he that is punished undeservedly is punished unjustly 2. That personal guilt being supposed one man's sin may be the impulsive cause of another's punishment but they cannot be the meritorious The difference between them he thus explains The cause is that which makes a thing to be the impulsive that which moves one to do a thing without any consideration of right that one hath to do it Merit is that which makes a man worthy of a thing either good or bad and so gives a right to it if it be good to himself if bad to him at whose hands he hath deserved it Now he tells us that it is impossible That one mans sins should make any other deserve punishment but the person who committed them but they may impell one to punish another and that justly if the person hath otherwise deserved to be punished unjustly if he hath not The reason he gives of it is That the vitiosity of the act which is the proper cause of punishment cannot go beyond the person of the offender and therefore can oblige none to punishment but him that hath committed the fault And therefore he asserts That no man can be justly punished beyond the desert of his own sins but there may sometimes be a double impulsive cause of that punishment viz. His own and other mens whereof one made that they might be justly punished the other that they should be actually but the latter he saith always supposeth the former as the foundation of just punishment so that no part of punishment could be executed upon him wherein his own sins were not supposed as the meritorious cause of it These are his two main principles which we must now throughly examine the main force of his Book lying in them But if we can prove that it hath been generally received by the consent of mankind that a person may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions if God hath justly punished some for the sins of others and there be no injustice in one mans suffering by his own consent for another then these principles of Crellius will be found not so firm as he imagines them IV. 1. That it hath been generally received by the consent of mankind that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert of his own
in that case is Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israels Charge and the blood shall be expiated for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here which is in the other places where Expiation is spoken of So that here must be some guilt supposed where there was to be an expiation and this expiation was performed by the substitution of a sacrifice in the place of the offender Which may be enough at present to shew that a substitution was admitted by the Law of a sacrifice instead of the offender in order to the expiation of guilt but whether the offender himself was to be freed by that Sacrifice depends upon the terms on which the sacrifice was offered for we say still that so much guilt was expiated as the sacrifice was designed to expiate if the sacrifice was designed to expiate the guilt of the offender his sin was expiated by it if not his in case no Sacrifice was allowed by the Law as in that of murther then the guilt which lay upon the Land was expiated although the offender himself were never discovered IV. I now come to prove that in correspondency to such a substitution of the sacrifices for sin under the Law Christ was substituted in our room for the expiation of our guilt and that from his being said to die for us and his death being called a price of Redemption for us 1. From Christ's being said to die for us By St. Peter For Christ hath also once suffered for sins the just for the unjust by whom he is also said to suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and for us in the flesh By St. Paul he is said to die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the ungodly and to give himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransom for all and to tast death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every man By Caiaphas speaking by inspiration he is said to die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the people So Christ himself instituting his last Supper said This is my body which was given and my blood which was shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you and before he had said That the Son of man came to give his life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransom for many We are now to consider what arts our Adversaries have made use of to pervert the meaning of these places so as not to imply a substitution of Christ in our room 1. They say That all these phrases do imply no more than a final cause viz. That Christ died for the good of mankind for the Apostle tells us We are bound to lay down our lives for the Brethren and St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church To which I answer 1. This doth not at all destroy that which we now plead for viz. That these phrases do imply a substitution of Christ in our room For when we are bid to lay down our lives for our brethren a substitution is implied therein and supposing that dying for another doth signifie dying for some benefit to come to him yet what doth this hinder substitution unless it be proved that one cannot obtain any benefit for another by being substituted in his room Nay it is observable that although we produce so many places of Scripture implying such a substitution they do not offer to produce one that is inconsistent with Christ's suffering in our stead all that they say is That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie so which we never said it did who say that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not instead of our sins but by reason of them but we assert that when one person is said to die for others as in the places mentioned no other sense can be so proper and agreeable as dying in the stead of the other 2. Socinus himself grants That there is a peculiarity implied in those phrases when attributed to Christ above what they have when attributed to any other And therefore he saith it cannot be properly said That one Brother dies for another or that Paul suffered for the Colossians or for the Church as Christ may truly and properly be said to suffer and to die for us And from hence saith he St. Paul saith was Paul crucified for you implying thereby that there never was or could be any who truly and properly could be said to die for Men but Christ alone How unreasonable then is it from the use of a particle as applied to others to inferr that it ought to be so understood when applied to Christ when a peculiarity is acknowledged in the death of Christ for us more than ever was or could be in one mans dying for another 3. It is not the bare force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we insist upon but that a substitution could not be more properly expressed than it is in Scripture by this and other particles for not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Socinus saith Although it may signifie something else besides in the stead of another yet in such places where it is spoken of a ransom or price it signifies the payment of something which was owing before as Matt. 17.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he acknowledges that where redemption is spoken of there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply a commutation because the price is given and the person received which he saith holds in Christ only metaphorically for the redemption according to him being only metaphorical the commutation must be supposed to be so too V. And this now leads us to the larger Answer of Crellius upon this argument Wherein we shall consider what he yields what he denies and upon what reasons 1. He yields and so he saith doth Socinus very freely a commutation but it is necessary that we should throughly understand what he means by it to that end he tells us That they acknowledge a twofold commutation one of the person suffering the kind of suffering being changed not actually but intentionally because we are not actually freed by Christ dying for us but only Christ died for that end that we might be freed And this commutation he saith that Socinus doth not deny to be implied in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the places where Christ is said to die for us Another commutation which he acknowledges is that which is between a price and the thing or person which is bought or redeemed by it where the price is paid and the thing or person is received upon it And this kind of commutation he saith is to be understood in the places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned which price he saith by accident may be a person and because the person is not presently delivered he therefore saith
these exceptions are will appear upon a true examination of the proper notion of Redemption which in its primary importance signifies no more than the obtaining of one thing by another as a valuable consideration for it Thence redimere anciently among the Latins signified barely to purchase by a valuable price for the thing which they had a right to by it and sometimes to purchase that which a man hath sold before thence the pactum redimendi in contracts still in whatever sense it was used by the Lawyers or others the main regard was to the consideration upon which the thing was obtained thence redimere delatorem pecunia h. e. eum à delatione deducere so redimere litem and redemptor litis was one that upon certain consideration took the whole charge of a suit upon himself and those who undertook the farming of customs at certain rates were called redemptores vectigalium qui redempturis auxissent vectigalia saith Livy And all those who undertook any publick work at a certain price redemptores antiquitus dicebantur saith Festus and Vlpian From hence it was applied to the delivery of any person from any inconvenience that he lay under by something which was supposed a valuable consideration for it And that it doth not only relate to captivity but to any other great calamity the freedom from which is obtained by what another suffers is apparent from these two remarkable expressions of Cicero to this purpose Quam quidem ego saith he speaking of the sharpness of the time à rep meis privatis domesticis incommodis libentissime redemissem And more expresly elsewhere Ego vitam omnium civium statum orbis terrae urbem hanc denique c. quinque hominum amentium ac perditorum poena redemi Where it is plain that redemption is used for the delivery of some by the punishment of others not from mere captivity but from a great calamity which they might have fallen into without such a punishment of those persons So vain is that assertion of Socinus Redimere nihil aliud propriè significat quam eum captivum è manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi dato liberare VIII And yet supposing we should grant that redemption as used in sacred Authors doth properly relate to captivity there is no necessity at all of that which our Adversaries contend so earnestly for viz. That the price must be paid to him that detains captive For we may very easily conceive a double sort of captivity from whence a redemption may be obtained the one by force when a Captive is detained purposely for advantage to be made by his redemption and the other in a judicial manner when the Law condemns a person to captivity and the thing designed by the Law is not a meer price but satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which a redemption may be obtained now in the former case it is necessary that the price be paid to the person who detains because the reason of his detaining was the expectation of the price to be paid but in the latter the detainer is meerly the instrument for execution of the Law and the price of redemption is not to be paid to him but to those who are most concerned in the honour of the Law But Crellius objects that the price can never be said to be paid to God because our redemption is attributed to God as the author of it and because we are said to be redeemed for his use and service now saith he the price can never be paid to him for whose service the person is redeemed But all this depends upon the former mistake as though we spake all this while of such a redemption as that is of a Captive by force in whom the detainer is no further concerned than for the advantage to be made by him and in that case the price must be paid to him who detains because it would otherwise be unsuccessful for his deliverance but in case of captivity by Law as the effect of disobedience the Magistrate who is concerned in the life of the person and his future obedience may himself take care that satisfaction may be given to the Law for his redemption in order to his future serviceableness From hence we see both that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper in this case of our redemption and that it is not a meer commutation of a price for a person but a commutation of one persons suffering for others which suffering being a punishment in order to satisfaction is a valuable consideration and therefore a price for the redemption of others by it Which price in this sense doth imply a proper substitution which was the thing to be proved Which was the first thing to be made good concerning the death of Christ being a sacrifice for sin viz. that there was a substitution of Christ in our stead as of the sacrifices of old under the Law and in this sense the death of Christ was a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of redemption for us Nothing then can be more vain than the way of our Adversaries to take away the force of all this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a meer deliverance without any price which we deny not but the main force of our argument is from the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned and then we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to sins signifies expiation as Heb. 9.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when applied to persons it signifies the deliverance purchased by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be considered as a bare price or thing given but as a thing undergone in order to that deliverance and is therefore not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too which Crellius confesseth doth imply a commutation and we have shewed doth prove a substitution of Christ in our place CHAP. V. I. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ because of the Oblation made therein to God Crellius his sense of Christ's Oblation proposed II. Against him it is proved that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God III. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest IV. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power V. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crellius his Doctrine be true VI. Ephes. 5.2 proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an Oblation to God The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour belongs to expiatory Sacrifices Crellius his gross notion of it VII His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law A new distribution of sacrifices proposed VIII What influence
the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation The High Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement from whence it is proved that Christ's Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice proved by the Iewish Laws and the customs of other Nations IX Whether Christ's Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law Several things observed from thence to our purpose X. All things necessary to a legal Oblation concurr in the death of Christ. XI His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it if the blood of Christ were no Sacrifice for sin In Sin-offerings for the People the whole was consumed no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests but in those for private Persons XII Christ's exercise of Power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God XIII Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute XIV Objections answered I. THE second thing to prove the death of Christ a Sacrifice for sin is the Oblation of it to God for that end Grotius towards the conclusion of his Book makes a twofold oblation of Christ parallel to that of the Sacrifices under the Law the first of Mactation the second of Representation whereof the first was done in the Temple the second in the Holy of Holies so the first of Christ was on Earth the second in Heaven the first is not a bare preparation to a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice the latter not so much a Sacrifice as the commemoration of one already past Wherefore since appearing and interceeding are not properly sacerdotal acts any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offered he that takes away that Sacrifice doth not leave to Christ any proper Priesthood against the plain authority of the Scripture which assigns to Christ the office of a Priest distinct from that of a Prophet and a King To which Crellius replies That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven and may be applied to the death of Christ only as the condition by which he was to enjoy that power in Heaven whereby he doth expiate sins but the Priest was never said to expiate sins when he killed the beast but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holies to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven does answer but mactation saith he was not proper to the Priests but did belong to the Levites also And Christ was not truly a Priest while he was on Earth but only prepared by his sufferings to be one in Heaven where by the perpetual care he takes of his People and exercising his power for them he is said to offer up himself and intercede for them and by that means he dischargeth the Office of a High Priest for them For his Priestly Office he saith is never in Scripture mentioned as distinct from his Kingly but is comprehended under it and the great difference between them is that one is of a larger extension than the other is the Kingly Office extending to punishing and the Priestly only to expiation This is the substance of what Crellius more at large discourseth upon this subject Wherein he asserts these things That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation of sins respect God but us his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist being the exercise of his power for the good of his People 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth because the mactation had no reference to expiation any other than as a preparation for it and Christ not yet being constituted a High Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse by proving 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. II. 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us which appears from the first Institution of a High Priest mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 5.1 For every High Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins Id est saith Crellius elsewhere ut procuret peragat ea quae ad colendum ac propitiandum numen pertinent i. e. That he may perform the things which appertain to the worshipping and propitiating God We desire no more but that the propitiating God may as immediately be said to respect him as the worshipping of God doth or let Crellius tell us what sense the propitiating God will bear if all that the High-Priest had to do did immediately respect the people nay he saith not long after That it was the chief Office of a High-Priest to plead the cause of sinners with God and to take care that they may find him kind and propitious and not angry or displeased In what sense God was said to be moved by the Expiatory Sacrifices is not here our business to discuss it is sufficient for our purpose that they were instituted with a respect to God so as to procure his favour and divert his wrath In which sense the Priest is so often in the Levitical Law said by the offering up of Sacrifices to expiate the sins of the people But Crellius saith This ought not so to be understood as though God by Expiatory Sacrifices were diverted from his anger and inclined to pardon which is a plain contradiction not only to the words of the Law but to the instances that are recorded therein as when Aaron was bid in the time of the Plague to make an Atonement for the people for there is wrath gone out from the Lord and he stood between the living and the dead and the plague was stayed Was not God's anger then diverted here by the making this Atonement The like instance we read in David's time that by the offering burnt-offerings c. the Lord was intreated for the Land and the plague was stayed from Israel By which nothing can be more plain than that the primary intention of such Sacrifices and consequently of the Office of the Priest who offered them did immediately respect the Atoning God But yet Crellius urgeth This cannot be said of all or of the most proper Expiatory Sacrifices but we see it said of more than the meer Sacrifices for sin as appointed by the Law viz of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings and incense in the examples mentioned So that these Levitical Sacrifices did all respect the atoning God although in some particular cases different Sacrifices were to be offered for it is said the
for any but Priests ever to come there His Power and Authority over the Church doth not imply it for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power his readiness to use that power cannot imply it which is the thing Smalcius insists on for his being a King of the Church doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church His receiving his power from God doth not imply that he was a Priest although Crellius insist on that unless all the Kings of the Earth are Priests by that means too and Christ could not have had a subordinate power as King as well as Priest But his death is more implied saith Crellius in the name of a Priest than of a King true if his death be considered as a Sacrifice but not otherwise For what is there of a Priest in bare dying do not others so too But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ than the meer title of a King What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while if his being so did not give the greatest encouragâ—ment to all his subjects nay it is plain the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people because that implies his power to defend them which the bare name of a Priest doth not So that there could be no reason at all given why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ if no more were implied in it than the exercise of his power with respect to us without any proper oblation to God For here is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him so that upon their hypothesis the name of High-Priest is a meer insignificant title used by the Author to the Hebrews without any foundation at all for it By no means saith Crellius for his expiation of sin is implyed by it which is not implied in the name of King True if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God which they deny but though they call it Expiation they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the Levitical Priesthood that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest who was thereby said to expiate the sins of the people how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense and yet still called by the same name V. But this being the main thing insisted on by them I shall prove from their own Principles that no expiation of sin in their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven by vertue of his Oblation of himself there and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider what their notion of the expiation of sins is which is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices There is a twofold power saith he of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin and that partly by declaring that God will do it and giving us a right to it partly by actual deliverance from punishment the other is by begetting Faith in us and so drawing us off from the practice of sin Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine and the other viz. the actual deliverance from punishment is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ for then only they say the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin viz. eternal death and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading men to believe or is his second coming when he shall sit as Judge the main part of his Priesthood for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christ's Priesthood than that is so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven or which is all one in their sence his continuance in Heaven to his second coming Yes saith Crellius his continuance there is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance and therefore it may be said that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins The utmost then that is attributed to Christ's being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing any thing in order to it for if he does it must either respect God or us but they deny though contrary to the importance of the words and the design of the places where they are used that the terms of Christ's interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us do note any respect to God but only to us if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin it must be either declaring perswading or actual deliverance but it is none of these by their own assertions and therefore that which they call Christ's Oblation or his being in Heaven signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing which hath no influence at all upon it should be looked on as a condition in order to it From whence it appears that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christ's Priesthood to respect us and not God they destroy the very nature of it and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it But if Christ be truly a High-Priest as the Apostle asserts that he is from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin which was the thing to be proved VI. 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering and a Sacrifice to God 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God which is plain from the words of St. Paul as Christ also hath loved us and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation but they deny That it is meant of an Expiatory
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
sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God To these places Crellius gives this answer That the name of Oblation as applyed to Christ primarily signifies Christ's first entrance into Heaven and appearance before the face of God there but consequently the continuance of that appearance so that when a thing is once actually exhibited and presented it is said to be once offered although being offered it always remains in the same place and so may be said to be a continual Oblation But this first appearance saith he hath a peculiar agreement with the legal Oblation and therefore the name of Oblation doth most properly belong to that because Christ by this means obtained that power on which the perfect remission of our sins depends but although the continuance of that appearance seems only consequentially to have the name of Oblation belonging to it yet in its own nature it hath a nearer conjunction with the effect of the Oblation viz. the remission of sins or deliverance from punishment and doth of it self confer more to it than the other doth And therefore in regard of that Christ is said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood and to offer and intercede for us from the time he is said to sit down at the right hand of God Against this answer I shall prove these two things 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self 2. That it by no means agrees to the places before mentioned 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self in two things 1. In making that to be the proper Oblation in correspondency to the Oblations of the Law which hath no immediate respect to the expiation of sins 2. In making that to have the most immediate respect to the expiation of sins which can in no tolerable sense be called an Oblation For the first since Crellius saith that the proper notion of Oblation is to be taken from the Oblations in the Levitical Law we must consider what it was there and whether Christ's first entrance into Heaven can have any correspondency with it An Oblation under the Law was in general any thing which was immediately dedicated to God but in a more limited sense it was proper to what was dedicated to him by way of Sacrifice according to the appointments of the Levitical Law We are not now enquiring what was properly called an Oblation in other Sacrifices but in those which then were for expiation of sin And in the Oblation was first of the persons for whom the Sacrifice was offered So in the Burnt-offering the person who brought it was to offer it at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation i. e. as the Iews expound it at the entrance of the Court of the Priests and there he was to lay his hands upon the head of it and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him This Offering was made before the Beast was slain after the killing the Beast then the Priests were to make an Offering of the blood by sprinkling it round about the Altar of Burnt-offerings the rest of the blood say the Iews was poured out by the Priests at the South-side of the Altar upon the foundation where the two holes were for the passage into the Channel which convey'd the blood into the valley of Kidron thus the blood being offered the parts of the beast were by the Priests to be laid upon the Altar and there they were all to be consumed by fire and then it was called an Offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the Lord. The same rites were used in the Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings as to the laying on of hands and the sprinkling the blood and consuming some part by fire and in the sin-offerings there was to be the same imposition of hands but concerning the sprinkling of the blood and the way of consuming the remainders of the Sacrifice there was this considerable difference that in the common sin-offerings for particular persons the blood was sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offerings but in the sin-offerings for the High-Priest and the Congregation or all the People he was to carry the blood within the Sanctuary and to sprinkle of it seven times before the Veil of the Sanctuary and some of the blood was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense but the remainder of the blood and the same things which were offered by fire in Peace-offerings were to be disposed of accordingly on the Altar of Burnt-offerings And withal there was this great difference that in other sin-offerings the Priests were to eat the remainder of the sacrifice in the Holy place but in these there was nothing to be eaten by them for the whole Bullock was to be carried forth without the Camp and there he was to be burned till all were consumed For it was an express Law That no sin-offerings whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to reconcile withal in the Holy-place shall be eaten it shall be burnt in the fire All the difference that was on the great day of Atonement was this that the High-Priest himself was to slay the Sin-offerings and then to carry the blood of them into the Holy of Holies and there was to sprinkle the blood with his finger towards the mercy-seat seven times after which the sending away the scape-goat the ceremonies were the same for the Atonement of the people which were at other solemn sin-offerings for the Priest or the people X. From all which being thus laid together we shall observe several things which are very material to our purpose 1. That in the Oblations which were made for expiation of sins the difference between the mactation and the oblation did arise from the difference between the Priest and the Sacrifice For the Priest's Office was to atone but he was to atone by the Sacrifice on which account although the Priest were to offer the Sacrifice for himself yet the oblation did not lie in the bare presenting himself before God but in the presenting the blood of that Sacrifice which was shed in order to expiation If we could have supposed that the High-Priest under the Law instead of offering a Goat for a Sin-offering for the people on the day of Atonement should have made an oblation of himself to God by dying for the expiation of their sins In this case his death being the Sacrifice and himself the Priest the mactation as it relates to his own act and his oblation had been one and the same thing For his death had been nothing else but the offering up himself to God in order to the expiation of the sins of the people and there can be no reason why the oblation must be of necessity something consequent to his death since all things necessary
to a perfect oblation do concur in it For where there is something solemnly devoted to God and in order to the expiation of sins and by the hand of a Priest there are all things concurring to a legal oblation but in this case all these things do concur and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ only consequent to his Ascension since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation In the Law we grant that the oblation made by the Priest was consequent to the death of the beast for Sacrifice but the reason of that was because the beast could not offer up it self to God and God had made it necessary that the Priest should expiate sins not by himself but by those Sacrifices and therefore the oblation of the blood was after the Sacrifice was slain neither could this have been solved barely by the Priest's slaying of the Sacrifices for this being an act of violence towards the beasts that were thus killed could not be a proper oblation which must suppose a consent antecedent to it All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law in which so many several things were to concur to make up a sacrifice for sin viz. The first offering made by the party concerned of what was under his dominion viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation but the beast not being able to offer up it self if was necessary for the offering up its blood that it must be slain by others and for the better understanding not only of the efficacy of the blood but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation he was to take the blood and sprinkle some of it on the Altar and pour out the rest at the foundation of it But since we assert a far more noble and excellent Sacrifice by the Son of God freely offering up himself to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world why may not this be as proper an oblation made unto God as any was under the Law and far more excellent both in regard of the Priest and the Sacrifice why should his oblation of himself then be made only consequent to his death and resurrection Which latter being by our Adversaries made not his own act but God's upon him and his entrance into Heaven being given him as they assert as a reward of his sufferings in what tolerable sense can that be called an oblation of himself which was conferred upon him as a reward of his former sufferings From whence it follows that upon our Adversaries own grounds the death of Christ may far more properly be called the oblation of himself than his entrance into Heaven and that there is no necessity of making the oblation of Christ consequent to his death there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law 2. We observe That the oblation as performed by the Priest did not depend upon his presenting himself before God but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice which had been already slain for the expiation of sins If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies and there only presented himself before the Mercy-seat and that had been all required in order to the expiation of sins there had been some pretence for our Adversaries making Christ's presenting himself in Heaven to be the oblation of himself to God but under the Law the efficacy of the High Priest's entrance into the Holy of Holies did depend upon the blood which he carried in thither which was the blood of the Sin-offering which was already slain for the expiation of sins And in correspondency to this Christ's efficacy in his entrance into Heaven as it respects our expiation must have a respect to that Sacrifice which was offered up to God antecedent to it And I wonder our Adversarâ—es do so much insist on the High Priest's entring into the most holy place once a year as though all the expiation had depended upon that whereas 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 us 3. We observe That there was something corresâ—ondent in the death of Christ to somewhat consequent to the oblation under the Law and therefore there can be no reason to suppose that the oblation of Christ must be consequent to his death for that destroys the correspondency between them Now this appears in this particular in the solemn Sacrifices for sin after the sprinkling of the blood which was carried into the Holy place to reconcile withall all the remainder of the Sacrifice was 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 Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his own blood suffered without the gate What force is 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 Ierusalem answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness 4. We observe That the Oblation in Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law by the Priest had always relation to the consumption of what was offered Thus the offering of the blood in token of the destruction of the life of the beast whose blood was offered for no blood was to be offered of a living creature nor of one killed 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 Creatuâ—e 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 persons who Sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be
him he tells them That he was made like to his Brethren and therefore they need not doubt but by the sense which he had of the infirmities of humane nature he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people which is all the Apostle means by those expressions So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth but only assert the excellency and the continuance of it in Heaven Which latter we are as far from denying as our Adversaries are from granting the former And thus much may suffice for the second thing to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it CHAP. VI. I. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ which either respect the sin or the person Of the true notion of expiation of sin as attributed to Sacrifices Of the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to them Socinus his proper sense of it examined II. Crellius his Objections answered III. The Iews notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon nor expiated merely as a slight part of obedience IV. God's expiating sin destroys not expiation by Sacrifice V. The importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to Sacrifices VI. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices VII And from thence and the places of Scripture which mention it proved not to be merely declarative If it had been so it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death VIII The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture IX And because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven X. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christ's entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God XI The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice respecting the person belong to the death of Christ which are Atonement and Reconciliation Of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XII The Reconciliation by Christ's death doth not merely respect us but God why the latter less used in the New Testament A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture Crellius his evasion answered XIII The Objections from God's being reconciled in the sending his Son XIV And the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered and the whole concluded I. THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice is That the effects of a proper Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it Which do either respect the sins committed and are then called Expiation and Remission or the persons who were guilty of them as they stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to the death of Christ and are attributed to it as the procuring cause of them and not as a bare condition of Christ's entrance into Heaven or as comprehending in it the consequents of it I bâ—gin with the Expiation and Remission of sins as to which Socinus doth acknowledge That the great correspondency doth lie between Christ's and the Legal Sacrifices We are therefore to enquire 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood and in what respect it is attributed to them For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set forth by which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the Expiation made by a Sacrifice We shall begin with the former because Crellius objects this against Grotius That he imployed his greatest diligence in the explication of the Greek and Latin words for Expiation of sin and was contented only to say that the Hebrew words would bear the same signification Whereas saith he he ought to have proved that the Hebrew words do require that sense which he takes them in But by Crellius his leave Grotius took the best course was to be taken in words whose signification is so obscure as those are in the Hebrew Language For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so very rarely used in Scripture in that which Socinus and Crellius contend to be the proper and natural signification of it viz. To hide or cover and so frequently in the sense of Expiation what better way could be taken for determining the sense of it as applied to Sacrifices than by insisting upon those words which are used in the New Testament to the very same purpose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the Old For they cannot pretend that which they say is the most proper sense can be applied to this subject viz. To cover with pitch or a bituminous matter which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 6.14 therefore it must of necessity be taken in another sense here But Socinus contends That it ought to be taken in a sense most agreeable to that which is saith he that the Expiation of sin be nothing else but the covering of it by God's grace and benignity Thence saith he David saith Blessed is the man whose iniquity is covered But how can this prove that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to sin is covered by God's Grace when neither the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used nor is there any respect at all mentioned of an Expiation by Sacrifice which is the thing we are discoursing of And is the covering of sin such an easie and intelligible phrase that this should be made choice of to explain the difficulty of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by What is it that they would have us understand by the covering sin surely not to make it stronger and more lasting as the Ark was covered with that bituminous matter for that end and yet this would come the nearest to the proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that from their own interpretation it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to the expiation of sin by Sacrifices cannot be taken so much as in allusion to that other sense for their sense of Expiation is either by the destruction of sin or deliverance of the sinner from the punishment of it but what resemblance is there between the covering of a thing in order to its preservation and the making
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
sins if all that blood of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon though a slight part of obedience in it self Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency to these Levitical Sacrifices for that was surely no slight part of his obedience Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him since our Adversaries say that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world But upon this supposition that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation the Apostles discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds For what necessity in the thing was there because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law therefore the blood of Christ must be so now although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end But the Apostles words and way of Argumentation doth imply that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other in order to Expiation although a far greater in the blood of Christ than could be in the other as the thing typified ought to exceed that which was the representation of it From hence we see that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law not immediately to God as belonging properly to him but to the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean Which he had very great reason to do since God expresly saith to the Iews that the blood was given them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad expiandum to expiate for their souls for the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall expiate the soul. Than which words nothing could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices but primarily to God and consequentially to the Priest who is never said to expiate but by the Sacrifice which he offered so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it But from this we may easily understand in what sense God is said to expiate sins where it hath respect to a Sacrifice which is that we are now discoursing of and not in any larger or more improper use of the word for since God himself hath declared that the blood was given for Expiation the Expiation which belongs to God must imply his acceptance of it for that end for which it was offered For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him he may be said in that sense to expiate because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins And we do not say that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement that it doth imply his undergoing any punishment which is impossible to suppose but that where it is attributed to a Sacrifice as the means of Atonement there we say it doth not imply a bare condition but such a Substitution of one in the place of another that on the account of that the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby V. And to this sense the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth very well agree for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny But that Gen. 31.39 it properly signifies Luere or to bear punishment although they say it no where else signifies so and the reason is because it is applied to the Altar and such other things which are not capable of it but doth it hence follow that it should not retain that signification where the matter will bear it as in the case of Sacrifices And although it be frequently rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices because those words when used concerning them do signifie Expiation too Grotius provesâ— that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek Authors not only signifie an antecedency of order but a peculiar efficacy in order to Expiation Thence expiatory Sacrifices among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently in Homer applied to Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plutarch and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the same sense an Expiatory Sacrifice in Herodotus is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the same purpose it is used in Hermogenes Plato and Plutarch as among the Latins placare purgare purificare conciliare lustrare in the same sense and piare when used in Sacrifices he proves to signifie Luere per successionem rei alterius in locum poenae debitae Thence piaculum used for an Expiatory Sacrifice and expiare is to appease by such a Sacrifice so Cereris numen expiare is used in Cicero filium expiare in Livy So that all these Sacrifices among them were supposed still to pertain to the atoning the Deity and obtaining a remission of sins committed by them And from hence because where there was a greater equality and nearness there might be the greater efficacy of the Sacrifice for expiation came the custom of sacrificing men which Grotius at large shews to have almost universally obtained before the coming of Christ. We are now to consider what Crellius answers to this the substance of which lies in these two things 1. He denies not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do in their proper use in the Greek Tongue signifie the purging of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment but that those and such other words are attributed to Sacrifices because those were supposed to be the effects of them among the Heathen but the attributing such effects to them did arise from their superstition whereby greater things were attributed to Sacrifices than God would have given to them either before or under the Law 2. He denies not but that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being used by the Author to the Hebrews more than once with respect to the Sacrifices and Priesthood of Christ were taken in the same sense in which they are used in the Greek Tongue viz. For the purgiâ—g of guilt and the aversion of the wrath of God and the punishment consequent upon it But all that he contends for is That there is a difference in the manner of effecting it which he acknowledges the words themselves do not imply and the reasons he gives for it are That the other were proper but Christ's an improper Sacrifice and that the other Sacrifices were offered by men to God but the Sacrifice of Christ was given by God to men and therefore he must be supposed to be
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
what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christ's dying for sinners and for the ungodly unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins Why are men said to be justified by his blood and not much rather by his glorious Resurrection if the blood of Christ be only considered as antecedent to the other And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage which could not have been the death in this sense but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene but it should not intervene for the other viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation but it should not for our life For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ and our reconciliation in order to that end what opposition then can be imagined that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other But he means that the death of Christ should not intervene any more what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ died only for this end before that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him But the main force of the Apostles argument lies in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled so that if he had so much kindness for enemies to die for their reconciliation we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation in the eternal salvation of them that obey him By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ in a notion proper to it self having influence upon our reconciliation and doth not consider it Metonymically as comprehending in it the consequents of it IX 2. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death viz. his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1.3 When he had by himself purged our sins sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high Heb. 9.12 But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us To these places Crellius gives a double answer 1. That indefinite particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned with Verbs of the preterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect tense which sometimes happens in particles of the preterperfect tense as Matth. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several other instances produced by him according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words Heb. 9.12 is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies and in so doing he found eternal redemption or the expiation of sins But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the preterperfect tense which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius but according to his sense of Christ's expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christ's entrance into Heaven and so it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christ's Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christ's entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christ's entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High Priest's entring into the Holy of Holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in Sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there
no reason to recede from that signification when they are applied to the blood of Christ. And we do not contend that when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to him that doth forgive it doth imply appeasing but the effect of it which is pardoning but that which we assert is that when it is applied to a third person or a thing made use of in order to forgiveness then we say it signifies the propitiating him that was justly displeased so as by what was done or suffered for that end he is willing to pardon what he had just reason to punish So Moses is said to make Atonement for the people by his prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 34.14 and we may see Verse 11. how much God was displeased before And Moses besought the Lord his God and said Why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people and Verse 12. Turn from thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against thy people and then it is said Verse 14. The Lord was atoned for the evil which he thought to do unto his people I would therefore willingly know why Moses might not here properly be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore since it is so very often said in the Levitical Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the accusative case scarce ever put but in two cases viz. When these words are applied to inanimate things as the Altar c. or when to God himself implying forgiveness what reason can we assign more probable for this different construction than that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the verb hath a respect to the offended party as the accusative understood as Christ is said in the places mentioned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought in reason to be understood as those words after Moses his intercession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Crellius asks Why then do we never read once concerning the Priest that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we read that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and God is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer 1. That the reason why the person propitiated is not expressed is because it was so much taken for granted that the whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God and therefore there was no danger of mistaking concerning the person who was to be atoned 2. I wonder Crellius can himself produce no instance where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used with respect to the Sacrifices and the persons whose offences are remitted by the Atonement but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a relation to that it is still joyned with a Preposition relating either to the person or to the offences if no more were understood when it is so used than when God himself is said to do it why is not the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well said of the Priest as it is of God From whence Grotius his sense of Heb. 2.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament than that which Crellius would put upon it Therefore since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to Christ we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory Sacrifice so it is said by Moses where God is left out but is necessarily understood after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry Ye have sinned a great sin And now I will go up unto the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I may make an Atonement for your sin What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement but by propitiating God yet his name is not there expressed but necessarily understood So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person Gen. 32.20 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 21.3 which places have been already insisted on in the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins are capable of no other sense will appear from the consideration of Christ as a middle person between God and us and therefore his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be parallel with that phrase where God himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people in order to the averting his wrath from them And when one doth thus interpose in order to the Atonement of the offended party something is always supposed to be done or suffered by him as the means of that Atonement As Iacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Saul's Sons both which are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed What reason can there be then why so receiv'd a sense of Atonement both among the Iews and all other Nations at that time when these words were written must be forsaken and any other sense be embraced which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression nor with so many other places of Scripture which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin XII Neither is it only our Atonement but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too with a respect to his Death and Sufferings As in the place before insisted on For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son and more largely in the second Epistle to the Corinthians And all things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him And to the Ephesians And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross having slain the enmity thereby To the same purpose to the Colossians And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth and you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places 1. That it is no
where said that God was reconciled to us but that we are reconciled to God and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implies only the laying aside our enmity to God by our sins I begin with the first of these concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture but what the nature of the thing implies as to which a difference being supposed between God and man on the account of sin no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual For did man only fall out with God and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him If not what made hâ—m so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages what made him add such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Iews what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men but of the persons of those who commit them so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them Nay what makes our Adversaries themselves to say that impiety is in its own nature hateful to God and stirs him up to anger against all who commit it what means I say all this if God be not angry with men on the account of sin Well then supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins shall this displeasure always continue or not if it always continues men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins if it doth not always continue then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him Now there are two ways whereby a party justly offended may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him First when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender that if the breach continues the fault wholly lies upon himself The second is when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offered and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked and is upon that received into favour And these two we assert must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us For upon the death and sufferings of Christ God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffered in order to the reconciliation between himself and us that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine and the Apostles he sent to preach it But because remission of sins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ without supposition of any act on our part therefore the state of favour doth commence from the performance of the conditions which are required from us So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christ's mediation and that the obstacle did not lie upon his part therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreeement do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle viz. the sins of Mankind that men by laying aside them would be now reconciled to God since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation their obstinacy in sin excepted Which may be a very reasonable account why we read more frequently in the Writings of the Apostles of mens duty in being reconciled to God the other being supposed by them as the foundation of their preaching to the world and is insisted on by them upon that account as is clear in that place to the Corinthians That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing unto men their trespasses and hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation and therefore adds Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God And least these words should seem dubious he declares that the reconciliation in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past v. 18. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation but hopes to escape the force of this place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation as preached by Christ and by his Apostles and so God's having reconciled the world to himself by Iesus Christ is nothing else but Christ's preaching the Gospel himself who afterwards committed that Office to his Apostles But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings both they were made and the Scripture were written to very little purpose for if this had been all the Apostle had meant that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World that Christ's Apostles preached no other Doctrine but what their Master had preached before especially if no more were meant by it but that men should leave their sins and be reconciled to God But besides why is the Ministry of Reconciliation then attributed only to the Apostles and not to Christ which ought in the first place to have been given to him since the Apostles did only receive it from him Why is that Ministry of Reconciliation said to be viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching to tell the World that Christ perswaded men to leave off their sins how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ since Christ himself saith he was not sent to preach to the world but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ before they had ever heard of him Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ rather than his Apostles if the not imputing were no more than declaring God's readiness to pardon which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ
himself Lastly what force or dependance is there in the last words For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christ's preaching How was he made sin more than the Apostles if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles as well as in Christ if no more be meant but being perswaded to be righteous by the Doctrine delivered to them In the two latter places Eph. 2.16 Coloss. 1.20 c. it is plain that a twofold reconciliation is likewise mentioned the one of the Iews and Gentiles to one another the other of both of them to God For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be joyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to stand by it self and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Iews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God And Crellius who stands out at nothing hopes to bring off Socinus here too by saying that it is very common for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions the shorter answer had been to have produced one place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party or where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconcilâ—ation was to be made As for that objâ—ction concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Mâ—n â—uâ— that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of Men to God become one body under Christ and are gathered together in him as the Apostle expresseth it Eph. 1.10 XIII 1. Having thus far proved that the effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries The first is That God was reconciled before he sent his Son and therefore Christ could not die to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of God's grace in the remission of sins Both which will admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse To the first I answer That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God which was discovered in sending his Son into the world we do not say That God hated mankind so muâ—h on the account of sin that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of God's love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that nothwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to die for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinners Christ died for us and that for this end that we might be reconciled to God by his death And therefore surely not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then But it were worth the while to understand what it is our Adversaries mean when they say God was reconciled when he sent his Son and therefore he could not die to reconcile God to us Either they mean that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his Son or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him if he only decreed to be reconciled that was not at all inconsistent with Christ's dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree if they mean he was actually reconciled then there was no need for Christ to die to reconcile God and us but withal actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came there could be no need of his coming at all and sins would have been pardoned before committed if they were not pardoned notwithstanding that love of God then it can imply no more but that God was willing to be reconciled If therefore the not-remission of sins were consistent with that love of God by which he sent Christ into the world then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God with not presently pardoning the sins of the world as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ which are asserted by us XIV To the other Obejction Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of God's Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either God's Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions or not If it be so free as to exclude all conditions then the highest Antinomianism is the truâ—st Doctrine for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace which admits of no conditions at all If our Adversaries say That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with conditions required on our part Why shall it not admit of conditions on God's part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of God's governing the world in the manifestation of his hatred against sin and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins There are two things to be considered in sin the dishonour done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themsâ—lves by it now remission of sins that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it and that is Free when the penalty is wholly forgiven as we assert it is by the Gospel to all penitent sinners but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honour and to declare his righteousness to the world while he is the Iustifier of them that believe Shall men in case of Defamation be bound to vindicate themselves though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander by our Adversaries own Doctrine and must it be repugnant to God's Grace to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice that the world may understand that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ for God
were the Christ the Son of God for he no doubt had heard of the Result of this Conference in Solomon's Porch Iesus said unto him Thou hast said S. Mark more expresly Iesus said I am And this was the Blasphemy for which they put him to death as appears by the Evangelists So that this ought to be a Dispute only between Iews and Christians since it was the very point for which they condemned him to death And in his last most divine Prayer just before his suffering he owns the Glory which he had with the Father before the World had a being And now O Father glorifie thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the World was Was this nothing but the Glory which God had designed to give him This is so far from being peculiar to Christ that it is common to all whom God designs to glorifie and takes away the distinction between the Decree and the Execution of it 2. As to the Apostles the Reason we believe their Testimony is that they were Men of great Sincerity and Plainness and of great Zeal for the Honour and Glory of God And according to this Character let us examine what they say concerning Christ Iesus He that was most conversant with him and beloved by him and lived to see his Divinity contested by some and denied by others is most ample in setting it forth in his Admirable Sublime and Divine Introduction to his Gospel Which all the Wit of Mankind can never make tolerable Sense of if they deny Christ's being the Eternal Son of God and it is he that hath preserved those Conferences with the Iews wherein he asserts his own Divinity S. Paul was a Stranger to him while he lived but at the same time when he was so zealous to perswade the Gentiles to the Worship of God and not of Creatures he calls him God over all blessed for evermore And when he saith that the Eternal Power and Godhead are known by the Creation of the World he attributes the Creation of all things to Christ applying to him those words of the Psalmist Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth and the Heaven the Work of thy hands Which cannot be understood of any Metaphorical Creation And after the strictest Examination of Copies those will be found the best which have that Reading on which our Translation is grounded And without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God wâ—s manifest in the Flesh. So that God's being manifest in the Flesh is made a great Part of the Mystery of Christianity But here arises a Difficulty which deserves to be considered i. e. If there were nothing in the Christian Doctrine but the Way of Saving sinners by the Doctrine and Example of Christ there would be little Objection to be made to it since the obtaining Eternal Life is certainly the best thing can be proposed to Mankind and the Precepts of Christ are Divine and Spiritual Plain and Easie to be Understood and Agreeable to the Reason of Mankind but many other things are imposed on Men as necessary to be believed concerning Christ Iesus as to his Divinity Incarnation and the Hypostatical Vnion of both Natures which perplex and confound our Understandings and yet these things are not only deliverâ—d as Mysteries of the Christian Faith but the Belief of them is required as necessary to the Salvation of Sinners whereas if they are Revealed they are no longer Mysteries and if they are not Revealed how come they to be made Articles of Faith The Scripture knows of no other Mysteries of Faith but such as were hidden before the Revelation of them but since they are Revealed they are plain and open to all mens Capacities and therefore it is a great Injury to the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel to impose such incomprehensible Mysteries as Necessary Articles of Faith and it is abusing the Credulity of Mankind to make such things necessary to be believed which are impossible to be understood But those who have ever loved to deceive and abuse the rest of the World have been always fond of the Name of Mysteries and therefore all such things are to be suspected which come under that Name For all such Points which will not bear Examination must be wrapt up and Reverenced under the Name of Mysteries that is of things to be swallow'd without being understood But the Scripture never calls that a Mystery which is Incomprehensible in it self though never so much revealed This is the main force of the Objection which I shall endeavour to remove by shewing 1. That God may justly require from us in general the Belief of what we cannot comprehend 2. That which way soever the Way of Salvation by Christ be explained there will be something of that Nature found in it and that those who reject the Mysteries of Faith run into greater Difficulties than those who assert them 3. That no more is required as a Necessary Article of Faith than what is plainly and clearly Revealed 1. That God may justly require from us in general the Belief of what we cannot comprehend It is to very little purpose to enquire whether the Word Mystery in Scripture be applied to such particular Doctrines whose Substance is revealed but the manner of them is incomprehensible by us for why may not we make use of such a Word whereby to express things truely revealed but above our Comprehension We are certain the Word Mystery is used for things far less difficult and abstruse and why may it not then be fitly applied to such matters which are founded on Divine Revelation but yet are too deep for us to go to the bottom of them Are there not Mysteries in Arts Mysteries in Nature Mysteries in Providence And what Absurdity is there to call those Mysteries which in some Measure are known but in much greater unknown to us Although therefore in the Language of Scripture it be granted that the word Mystery is most frequently applied to things before hidden but now revealed yet there is no Incongruity in calling that a Mystery which being revealed hath yet something in it which our understandings cannot reach to But it is meer Cavilling to insist on a Word if the Thing it self be granted The chief thing therefore to be done is to shew that God may require from us the belief of such things which are incomprehensible by us For God may require any thing from us which it is reasonable for us to do if it be then reasonable for us to give Assent where the manner of what God hath revealed is not comprehended then God may certainly require it from us Hath not God revealed to us that in six days he made Heaven and Earth and all that is therein But is it not reasonable for us to believe this unless we are able to comprehend the manner of God's production of things Here we
of God in him Hereby we understand how so innocent a Person came to suffer he stood in our stead he was made Sin for us and therefore was to be treated as a Sinner and to suffer that on our Account which he could not deserve on his own If he suffer'd on his own Account this were the way to fill our Minds with perplexity concerning the Justice of Providence with Respect to his dealings with the most innocent and holy Persons in this World If he suffer'd on our Account then we have the Benefit of his Sufferings and therein we see how displeasing to God sin is when even his own Son suffer'd so much by taking the guilt of our Sins upon him And what can tend more to the begetting in us a due hatred of sin than to consider what Christ himself suffer'd on the Account of it What can make us have more dreadful thoughts of it than that the great and merciful God when he designed to save sinners yet would have his own Son to become a Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind And unless we allow this we must put force upon the plainest Expressions of Scripture and make Christ to suffer meerly to shew God's Power over a most innocent Person and his Will and Pleasure to inflict the most severe Punishment without any Respect to Guilt And surely such a Notion of God cannot be worthy of all Acceptation 3. Which tends most to strengthen our Hope of Salvation by Christ Iesus If we believe that he suffer'd for our Sins then we have great Reason to hope for the Forgiveness of them although they have been many and great if we sincerely Repent because the most prevailing Argument for Despair will be removed which is taken from the Iustice of God and his declared Hatred of Sin and Displeasure against Sinners If God be so much in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind and his Justice be concerned in the Punishment of Sinners how can they ever hope to escape unless there be a way for his Displeasure to be removed and his Justice to be satisfied And this the Scripture tells us is done by Christ who died that he might be a Sacrifice of Atonement to Reconcile us to God by his Death as S. Paul expresly affirms And by this means we may have strong Consolation from the Hopes of Forgiveness of our Sins Whereas if this be taken away either Men must believe that God was not in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind which must exceedingly lessen our Esteem of the Holiness and Iustice of God or if he were so displeased that he laid aside his Displeasure without any Atonement or Sacrifice of Expiation And so as many as look on God's Iustice and Holiness as necessary and essential Attributes of God will be in danger of sinking into the Depths of Despair as often as they Reflect seriously on the Guilt of their Sins But on the other side if we believe that while we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son then we may have Peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ and have reason to believe that there will be no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus by a lively Faith and sincere Repentance then they may with Comfort look up to God as a Reconciled Father through Iesus Christ our Mediator then they may with inward Satisfaction look beyond the Grave and stedfastly hope for that Salvation which Christ purchased on Earth and will at last bestow on all such as Love and Obey him To which God of his Infinite Mercy bring us all through Iesus Christ. For This is a faithfull Saying and worthy of all Acceptation that he came into the World to save Sinners FINIS Books Written by the Right Reverend Father in God Edw. L. Bishop of Worcester and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. G. 2d Edit Fol. Origines Britannica or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae Or a Rational account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Script and the matters therein contained 4 to A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo A Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation of Benefices in point of Law and Conscience in Octavo A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is cleared and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the Dispensing Power The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Ch. of England Quarto The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament-Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the Tree Estates in Parliament Octavo Twelve Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. I. Octavo Ten Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. II. Octavo A Third Volume will be shortly published A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity with an Answer to the late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And a Preface concerning the different Explication of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present
Socinian Controversie The second Edition Octavo The Bishop of Worcester's Answer to Mr. Lock 's Letter concerning some Passages relating to his Essay of Humane Understanding mentioned in the late Discourse in Vindication of the Trinity With a Postscript in Answer to some Reflections made on that Treatise in a late Socinian Treatise Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity in the Archbishop's Sermons c. p. 31. Answ. to Serm. p 12. Socin Op. T. 1. p. 391. Socin Epist p. 196. Ed. Racov. p. 204. p. 224. p. 226. p. 254. p. 265. Catech. Racov. c. 8. q. 4. Q. 12. Q. 38. Catech. Racov. Staurop A.D. 1680. p. 141. Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity by Dr. W. c. p. 32. Answer to my Serm. p. 12. Answ. to Milb p. 58. Answ. to Milb p. 53. p. 54. p. 55. Trinitarian Scheme of Relig. p. 18. p. 19. Answ. to the Archbishop p. 32. Matt. 2â— 28 Mark 10.45 Levit. 17.11 Heb. 9.22 Levit. 16.10 11. 14 15 19. v. 21.27 Heb. 9.9 12 13 14. 13 12. Heb. 7.25 Levit. 16.22 26. 4.15 1.4 Matt. 26.28 Heb. 10.9 10. John 10.17 18. 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3 1â— Eph. 1.7 Coloss. 1.14 Rom. 3.25 5.10 Eph. 5.2 Heb. 9.26 28. 1 Tim. 2.6 1 Pet. 2.24 3.18 1 John 1.7 2.2 4.10 Socin de Serv. l. 2. c. 1. in fin Answ. to Milb p. 58. Ch. I. Answ. to Milb p. 53. Deut. 32.4 Psal. 145.17 Neh. 9.33 Dan. 9.7 14. Zeph. 3.5 Gen. 18.25 20.4 Psal. 11.5 Prov. 6.16 Psal. 45.7 Zech. 8.17 Ch. I. p. 20. Catech. Racov. p. 179. Schlictin in Joh 5.29 Curcel Instit l. 2. c. 13. §. 5. Limborch Theol. Christ. l. 2. c. 12. §. 35. Rom. 2.5 Episcop Inst. Theol l. 4. c. 29. Vorst de Attrib Disp. 9. §. 38. §. 47. §. 50. Not. ad §. 46. Vindic. of S. R. H. p. 128. Socin de Servat Part. 2. c. 4. c. C. 7. Chap. II. Chap. III. Ch. IV. v. 4. Of the Socinian way of interpreting Scripture John 1.3 10. Socin de Servat Part. 2. Cap. 4. The state of the Controversie in general Of the difference of debts and punishments Non resipiscentibus veneam non concedere id demum naturae divinae decretis ejus propterea rectitudini â—quitati debitum est ac consentaneum Socin de Servat l. 1. c 1. Non resipiscentes poenà non liberare tum per se aequitati est admodum consâ—ntaneum positis quibusdam finibus quos Deus sibi in regendis hominibus prâ—fixit facto necessarium Crell c. Grot. c. 2. sect 29. The reason of humane punishment is the publick interest The right of Divine punishment not mere Dominion Crell Respons ad Grot. cap. 2. sect 1. c. P. 144. Soc. de Servat l. 3. c. 3. Pralect c. 18. 2. The end of punishments not bare compensation as it is in debts Crell c. Grot. cap. 2. Sect. 2. p. 147. Sect. 17. p. 162. Crell c. Grot. cap. 2. p. 174. Sect. 29. p. 198. Of Crellius his great mistake about the end of punishments Crell cap. 2. sect 2. sect 28. P. 191. Of the nature of anger and revenge in men and whether punishments are designed to satisfie them Crell c. 2. sect 22. p. 177. â—â—erâ— 313. Seneca de Clem. l. 1. c. 20. De Irâ l. 2. c. 32. De Irâ l. 1. c. 6. De Ira l. 1. c. 9. Cap. 12. Cap. 13. De Clem. l. 2 c. 4. De Clem. l. 1. c. 11 12. Sallust in Catalin Cicero 7. v. Cicero de Invent. 2. De Irâ l. 1. c. 21. * Non praeterita sed futura intuebitur nam ut Plato ait nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est sed Sen. de Ira ne peccetur l. 1. c. 16. Lact. de ira Dei c. 17. Cap. 2. sect 13. Cap. 2. sect 1. p. 143. Sect. 13. p. 161. Sen. de ira l. 1. c. 14 15. Chap. 16. Quibus sc. solatio securitati addi possint honoris ac dignitatis per injuriam violatae aliquae ratione imminutae vindiciae assertioque juris nostri Crel cap. 2. sect 28. p. 191. The Interest of the Magistrate in punishment distinct from that of private persons De morib German c. 12. Grot. de leg Goth. in Proleg ad hist. Goth. p. 67. Lindenbrog Gloss. ad Cod. Leg. Antiq. v. Freda Spelman Gloss. v. Freda Bignon not in Macculphi form cap. 20. Varro de L. L. lib. 4. Iul. Pollux l. 8. Of the nature of Anger in God the satisfaction to be made to it Crell cap. sect 1. p. 145. p. 177. Cicer. Tuscul 4. Arist Rhet. l. 2. c. 2. Crell c. 2. sect 22. p. 177. Crell de verâ Relig· l. 1. c. 30. Crell cap. 7. sect 3. p. 350. Of the ends of divine punishments Crell c. 2. sect 29. p. 129. P. 195. Ezek. 18. v. 23 32. c. 33.11 Grot de satisfact c. 2. p. 43. Ed. 1617. Grot. de jure belli c. l 2. c. 20. sect 4. The ends of Divine punishments different in this and the future state The particular state of the controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ for us Crell praef p. 7. Ruarus in Epistol Crell cap. 9. sect 2. Cap. 10. sect 10. Cap. 7 8 c. Cap. 1. sect 57. Whether the sufferings of Christ are to be considered as a punishment of sin Crell cap. 2. sect 1. p. 142. Crell cap. 1. sect 7. c. Socin de Christo servat l. 3. c. 10. Crell cap. 1. sect 16. Socin l. 2. c. 7. Crell c. 1. sect 11. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture 1 Pet. 2.24 Isa. 53.4 5 6 7 10 11. 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Rom. 4.25 Soc. de servat l. 2. cap. 4. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 32. Psal. 95.11 Heb. 3.11 Doctissimè elegantissimè Vatablus ut ferè solet Soc. de serv. l. 1. c. 8. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 31. Ezek. 18.20 Crell cap. 4. sect 15. Of the Scape-Goats bearing away the sins of the people Socin 2. c. 4. Lev. 16.22 Grot. de sat cap. 1. Crell cap. 1. sect 56. Gen. 6.12 Gen. 8.21 Isa. 40.5 Lev. 16.21 Cod. Ioma tit 6. Lev. 16.12 Heb. 9.22 Lev. 16.20 V. 15. V. 21. V. 22. Crell c. 1. sect 56. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2.24 vindicated Crell c. 1. sect 35. Crell his sense examined Soc. de serv. l. 2. cap. 6. Crell cap. â— Sect. 39. Sect. 44. Isa. 53.11 vindicated Crell c. 1. sect 35. Crell c. 1. sect 44. Crell c. 9. sect 7. p. 463. Soc. Prael c. 14. sect 6. 2 Sam. 24.1 Mat. 8.16 Mat. 1.32 33. Luk. 4.42 Epist. Eccl. p. 747 748. Discuss p. 16 17. Isa. 53.5 6 7. vindicated De Servat l. 2. c. 5. Crell c. 1. sect 52. Crell c. 1. sect 57. Whether Christ's death be a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin God's hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ if
they were no punishment of sin Crell c. 1. p. 69. Crell c. 8. sect 43. Crell c. 1. sect 57 70. Grotius his arguments from Christ's being made sin and a curse for us defended against Crellius Crell c. 1. sect 60. Soc. l. 1. c. 8. Gen. 18.25 Crell cap. 1. Sect. 57. Socin explicat 1. cap. Iob. v. 10. Socin de Christo servat l. 2. c. 1. Câ—â—ll Anâ—â— in loc The particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be the punishment of sin Rom. 4.25 1 Cor. 15.3 1 Pet. 3.18 Heb. 10.12 Crell cap. 1. sect 6. Sect. 14. p. 17. Socin de Servat l. 3. c. 6. The matter debated in point of reason Câ—rtum est Christum innocentissimum a Deogravissimâ—s cruciatibus ipsaque morte fuisse affectum cum non in materiâ poenae absolute per se consideratâ adeoque etiam in eâ— afflictione à quà poenae forma abest injuria residere à nobis dicatur Crel c. 4. Sect. 3. Potuit autem id Deus faâ—ere atque adeo fecit jure dominii quod in Christi vitam aâ— corpus habebat accedente praesertim ipsius Christi consensu Id. 〈◊〉 Sect 4. Quod si ex thesi speciale facere velis generalem ea haec erit injustum esse punire innocentem quacunque tandem de causâ id fiat non vero simpliciter punire quempiam ob aliena delicta id enim concedi potest non semper esse injustum Crel c. 4. Sect. 3. Cum ne illud quidem ad naturam poenae requiratur ut is ipse qui puniendus est poenam reverà fuerit commeritus Id. Sect 5. Poenae quidem simpliciter in innocentem cadit justa non cadit Crell c. 4. Sect. 28. In what cases Crellius grants some may be lawfully punished for the sins of others Quia Deus hunc puniendo illum quoque alterum ob cujus peccati eum dicitur punire simul punire possit ob arctiorem quae inter illos intercedat conjunctionem Crell ib. Sect. 5. Crell p. 242. Crell ib. sect 11. sect 19. Crellius his arguments propounded Crell c. 4. sect 3. p. 239 240. Crell ib. sect 18. That a person by his own consent may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions Grot. de Satisf c. 4. Crell c 4. sect 5. p. 244. Objections answered Immerito quenquam punire est injustè punire Crell p. 240. The instances of Scripture considered Exod. 20.3 Alph à Castro de justâ haeret punit l. 2. c. 10. Gen 9 25. 2 Sam. 24.17 2 Sam. 21.5 2 Kin. 23. v. 4 to v. 21. Vers. 22. Vers. 26. 2 Chron. â—4 33 2 Sam. 24.3 4. Ezek. 18.20 explained Ezek. 18.4.20 Jer. 31.29 30. Ezek. 18.2 Matt. 23.35 Ezek. 18.25 Ezek. 33.20 Crell c 4. sect 15. The deliverance of the guilty by the sufferings of an innocent person by his own consent makes not the punishment unjust Crell c. 4. sect 30 32 34 c. Crell c. 4. sect 25. 1 Kin. 21.19 Crell cap. 6. sect 39. Crell ib. sect 28. The death of Christ considered as an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin Heb. 9.22 Crell c. 10. sect 14. Crell c. 10. sect 13. What the Expiation of sin was by the Sacrifices under the Law Grot de Satisf c. 10. Heb. 9.12 13. Heb. 10.1 Heb. 9.9.10.4 Socin de servat l. 2. c. 10. Praelect Theolog cap. 22. A substitution proved from Lev. 17.11 c. Crell c. 10. sect 9. Exod. 30.32 33. 37 38. Ovid. Fast. l. 6. Lev. 3.16 Servius ad Aeneid 4. Euseb. demonst Evang l. 1. c. 10. Crell c. 8. sect 23. Denotat enim vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eos quorum alter pro alpero animam ponat aut de voâ—veat sic id malum quod alteri subcundum erat ejus loâ—o subire non detrectet Socin de servat l. 3. c. 11. Numb 35.33 Crell c. 10. sect 9. Deut. 21. â— A substitution of Christ in our room proved by his dying for us 1 Pet. 3.18 2.21.4.1 2 Cor. 5.14 Rom. 5.6 1 Tim. 2.6 Heb. 2.9 Joh. 11.50 Luke 22.19 20. Matt. 20.28 1 Joh. 3.16 Col. 1. â—4 Soc. de servat l. 2. c. 8. 1 Cor. 1.13 Socin â—b In what sense a surrogation of Christ in our room is asserted by us Crell c. 9. sect 3. ib. sect 2. Ib. sect 6. Ib. sect â— Ib sect 3. Covarru 3. To. 1. p. 1. sect 4. n. 3. Our Redemption by Christ proves a substitution Crell c. 9. sect 2. Of the true notion of Redemption Socin de servat l. 2. c. 1 2. Crell c. 8. sect 11. Ulpian l. 29. D. de jure sisci Budaeus ad Pandect p. 189. Liv. l. 23. Festus v. red Ulpian l. 39. D. de rei vend Cic ep fam l. 2. ep 16. Orat. pro 〈◊〉 Soc. de servat l. 2. c. 1. No necessity of paying the price to him that detains captive Crell c. 8. sect 11. Of the Oblation made by Christ unto God Crell c. 10. sect 45. Ib. sect 55. Ib. sect 47. Ib. sect 53. Ib. sect 54. Sect. 56. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not us Crell in Heb. 5.1 Crell c. 1â— sect 3. Numb 16.46 Vers 48. 2 Sam. 24.25 Lev. 1.4.4.20.5.7 1 Chron. 6.49 Grot. in Heb. 5.1 Christ no barely metaphorical High-Priest 〈◊〉 c. 10. sect 3. Heb 8 2. Crell cap. 10. sect 3. Id. sect 56. p. 547. Crellius destroys the Priesthooâ— of Christ Smalc c. Smiglect Crell cap. â—â— p. 544. Levit. 4.26 v. â—4 35. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven if Crelleus his doctrine be true Crell c. 10. sect 2. Crell c. 10. sect 3. p. 476. Heb. 7.25 Rom. 8.3 1 Joh. 2.1 Ephes. 5.2 Proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an oblation to God Eph. 5.2 Crell c. 10. sect 47. Gen. 8.20 21. Porphyr de abstinent l. 2. sect 42. Ioseph Antiq Iud. l. 1. c. 4. Crellius his mistakes about the kinds of sacrifices Gen. 4.3 4. Job 1.5.42.8 Selden de jure nat gent. apud Ebrae l. 3. c. 2. c. 6. Levit. 1. â— Lev. 7.16.22.18 c. Lev. 6.7 Crell c. 10. p. 530. What influence the mactation of thâ— sacrifice had on expiation Crell c. 10 p. 533. Levit. 17.11 Heb. 9.22 Levit. 16.11 15. 〈…〉 cap 4. sect â— cap. â— sect 4. Heb. 9.13 14.10.4 10. Macrob. Saturn l. 3. c. 5. Strabo l. 15. Eustath in Hom. Iliad 1. Strabo l. 3. Herod l. 1. Whether Christ's Oblation of himself once to God were in Heaven or on Earth Crell cap. 10. sect 54. Lev. 1.3 V. 4 Lev. 4.25 30. V. 6. Lev. 6.26 Lev. 4.11 12. Lev. 6.30 Lev. 16.14 15. All things necessary to a legal oblation concur in the death of Christ. Heb. 9.12 Heb. 13.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodot l. 2. c 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch de Iside Xenoph. Cyropaed l. 7.8 Strab. l. 4.