different kind of expiation as far as purifying the flesh is from purging the Conscience But we do not deny that the whole dispensation was typical and that the Law had a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things i. e. a dark and obscure representation and not the perfect resemblance of them There are two things which the Apostle asserts concerning the Sacrifices of the Law First that they had an effect upon the Bodies of men which he calls purifying the flesh the other is that they had no power to expiate for the sins of the soul considered with a respect to the punishment of another life which he calls purging the Conscience from dead works and therefore he saith that all the gifts and sacrifices under the Law could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience and that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin So that the proper expiation which was made by them was civil and ritual relating either to corporal punishment or to legal uncleanness from whence the Apostle well proves the necessity of a higher Sacrifice to make expiation for sins as pertaining to the Conscience But that expiation among the Iews did relate to that Polity which was established among them as they were a people under the Government of a body of Laws distinct from the rest of the world And they being considered as such it is vain to enquire whether they had only temporal or eternal promises for it was impossible they should have any other than temporal unless we imagine that God would own them for a distinct people in another World as he did in this For what Promises relate to a People as such must consider them as a People and in that capacity they must be the blessings of a Society viz. peace plenty number of People length of days c. But we are far from denying that the general Principles of Religion did remain among them viz. that there is a God and a rewarder of them that seek him and all the Promises God made to the Patriarchs did continue in force as to another Country and were continually improved by the Prophetical instructions among them But we are now speaking of what did respect the people in general by vertue of that Law which was given them by Moses and in that respect the punishment of saults being either death or exclusion from the publick Worship the expiation of them was taking away the obligation to either of these which was the guilt of them in that consideration But doth not this take away the typical nature of these sacrifices No but it much rather establisheth it For as Socinus argues If the expiation was only typical there must be something in the type correspondent to that which is typified by it As the Brazen Serpent typified Christ and the benefit which was to come by him because as many as looked up to it were healed And Noahs Ark is said to be a type of Baptism because as many as entred into that were saved from the deluge So Corinth 10. the Apostle saith that those things happened to them in types v. 11. because the events which happened to them did represent those which would fall upon disobedient Christians So that to make good the true notion of a Type we must assert an expiation that was real then and agreeable to that dispensation which doth represent an expiation of a far higher nature which was to be by the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ. Which being premised I now come to pâ—ove that there was a substitution designed of the Beast to be slain and sacrificed in stead of the offenders themselves Which will appear from Levitious 17. 11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it you upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls for it is the blood that maketh an Atonement for the Soul The utmost that Crellius would have meant by this place is that there is a double reason assigned of the prohibition of eating blood viz. that the life was in the blood and that the blood was designed for expiation but he makes these wholly independent upon each other But we say that the proper reason assigned against the eating of the blood is that which is elsewhere given when this Precept is mentioned viz. that the blood was the life as we may see Gen. 9. 4 Levit. 17. 14. but to confirm the reason given that the blood was the life he adds that God had given them that upon the Altar for an Atonement for their Souls So the Arabick Version renders it and therefore have I given it you upon the Altar viz. because the blood is the life And hereby a sufficient reason is given why God did make choice of the blood for atonement for that is expressed in the latter clause for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul why should this be mentioned here if no more were intended but to give barely another reason why they should not eat the blood what force is there more in this clause to that end than in the soregoing for therein God had said that he had given it them for an Atonement If no more had been intended but the bare prohibition of common use of the blood on the account of its being consecrated to sacred use it had been enough to have said that the blood was holy unto the Lord as it is in the other instances mentioned by Crellius of the holy Oyntment and Perfume for no other reason is there given why it should not be profaned to common use but that it should be holy for the Lord if therefore the blood had been forbidden upon that account there had been no necessity at all of adding that the blood was it that made atonement for the Soul which gives no peculiar reason why they should not eat the blood beyond that of bare consecration of it to a sacred use but if we consider it as respecting the first clause viz. For the life of the flesh is in the blood then there is a particular reason why the blood should be for atonement viz. because the life was in that and therefore when the blood was offered the life of the Beast was supposed to be given instead of the life of the offender According to that of Ovid Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus This will be yet made clearer by another instance produced by Crellius to explain this which is the forbidding the eating of fat which saith he is joyned with this of blood Levit. 3. 17. It shall be a perpetual Sâ—atute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings that ye eat neither fat nor blood To the same purpose Levit. 7. 23 25 26. Now no other reason is given of the prohibition of the
we should be so near a final subversion and utter desolation as the ten Tribes were when none of these things would bring them to repentance but yet the method God hath used with us seems to bode very ill in case we do not at last return to the Lord. For it is not only agreeable to what is here delivered as the course God used to reclaim the Israelites but to what is reported by the most faithful Hisiorian of those times of the degrees and steps that God made before the ruines of the British Nation For Gildas tells us the decay of it began by Civil Wars among themselves and high discontents remaining as the consequents of them after this an universal decay and poverty among them after that nay during the continuance of it Wars with the Picts and Scots their inveterate enemies but no sooner had they a little breathing space but they return to their luxury and other sins again then God sends among them a consuming Pestilence which destroyed an incredible number of people When all this would not do those whom they trusted most to betrayed them and rebelled against them by whose means not only the Cities were burnt with Fire but the whole Island was turned almost into one continued flame The issue of all which at last was that their Country was turned to a desolation the ancient Inhabitants driven out or destroyed and their former servants but now their bitter enemies possessing their habitations May God avert the Omen from us at this day We have smarted by Civil Wars and the dreadful effects of them we yet complain of great discontents and poverty as great as them we have inveterate enemies combined abroad against us we have very lately suffered under a Pestilence as great almost as any we read of and now the great City of our Nation burnt down by a dreadful Fire And what do all these things mean and what will the issue of them be though that be lockt up in the Councils of Heaven yet we have just cause to fear if it be not our speedy amendment it may be our ruine And they who think that incredible let them tell me whether two years since they did not think it altogether as improbable that in the compass of the two succeeding years above a hundred thousand persons should be destroyed by the Plague in London and other places and the City it self should be burnt to the Ground And if our fears do not I am sure our sins may tell us that these are but the fore-runners of greater calamities in case there be not a timely reformation of our selves And although God may give us some intermissions of punishments yet at last he may as the Roman Consul expressed it pay us intercalatae poenae usuram that which may make amends for all his abatements and give us full measure according to that of our sins pressed down shaken together and running over Which leads to the third particular 3. The Causes moving God to so much severity in his Iudgements which are the greatness of the sins committed against him So this Prophet tells us that the true account of all Gods punishments is to be fetched from the sins of the people Amos 1. 3. For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof so it is said of Gaza v. 6. of Tyrus v. 9. of Edom v. 11. of Ammon v. 13. Moab ch 2. 1. Iudah v. 4. and at last Israel v. 6. And it is observable of every one of these that when God threatens to punish them for the greatness of their iniquities and the multitude of their transgressions which is generally supposed to be meant by the three transgressions and the four he doth particularly threaten to send a fire among them to consume the Houses and the Palaces of their Cities So to Damascus chap. 1. 4. to Gaza v. 7. to Tyrus v. 10. to Edom v. 12. to Ammon v. 14. to Moab ch 2. v. 2. to Iudah v. 5. I will send a fire upon Judah and it shall devour the Palaces of Jerusalem and Israel in the words of the text This is a judgement then which when it comes in its fury gives us notice to how great a height our sins are risen especially when it hath so many dreadful forerunners as it had in Israel and hath had among our selves When the red horse hath marched furiously before it all bloody with the effects of a Civil War and the pale horse hath followed after the other with Death upon his back and the Grave at his heels and after both these those come out of whose mouth issues fire and smoak and brimstone it is then time for the inhabitants of the earth to repent of the work of their hands But it is our great unhappiness that we are apt to impute these great calamities to any thing rather than to our sins and thereby we hinder our selves from the true remedy because we will not understand the cause of our distemper Though God hath not sent Prophets among us to tell us for such and such sins I will send such and such judgements upon you yet where we observe the parallel between the sins and the punishments agreeable with what we find recorded in Scripture we have reason to say that those sins were not only the antecedents but the causes of those punishments which followed after them And that because the reason of punishment was not built upon any particular relation between God and the people of Israel but upon reasons common to all mankind yet with this difference that the greater the mercies were which any people enjoyed the sooner was the measure of their iniquities filled up and the severer were the judgements when they came upon them This our Prophet gives an account of Chap. 3. 2. You only have I known of all the Nations of the earth therefore will I punish you for your iniquities So did God punish Tyre and Damascus as well as Israel and Iudah but his meaning is he would punish them sooner he would punish them more severely I wish we could be brought once to consider what influence piety and vertue hath upon the good of a Nation if we did we should not only live better our selves but our Kingdom and Nation might flourish more than otherwise we are like to see it do Which is a truth hath been so universally received among the wise Men of all ages that one of the Roman Historians though of no very severe life himself yet imputes the decay of the Roman State not to Chance or Fortune or some unhidden causes which the Atheism of our Age would presently do but to the general looseness of mens lives and corruption of their manners And it was the grave Observation of one of the bravest Captains ever the Roman State had that it was impossible for any State to be happy stantibus
of it made them hate him the more since they thought with themselves what strange things they would have done with it for the benefit of their Country and therefore express the greatest malice against him because he would not imploy it as they would have him From thence they condemn his Miracles as only some effects of a Magical skill and say he dispossessed the lesser Devils by the power of him that was the Prince among them So unworthy a requital did they make for all the mighty works which had been done among them Which as our Saviour saith if they had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes 3. But although all this argued a strange spirit of contradiction in them to all the designs for their own good yet the malice from whence that rose would not stop here for as they had long contrived his ruine so they watched only an opportunity to effect it Which his frequent presence at Ierusalem seemed to put into their hands but his reputation with the people made them fearful of embracing it Therefore they imploy their Agents to deal privately with one of his Disciples who might be fittest for their design and to work upon his covetous humour by the promise of a reward to bring him to betray his Master with the greatest privacy into their hands This Iudas undertakes knowing the place and season of his Masters retirements not far from the City where they might with the greatest secrecy and safety seize upon his person Which contrivance of theirs our Saviour was not at all ignorant of but prepares himself and his Disciples for this great encounter He institutes his solemn Supper to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his death and sufferings after which he discourses admirably with his Disciples to arm them against their future sufferings and prays that most divine Prayer St. Iohn 17. which he had no sooner finished but he goes with his Disciples to the usual place of his retirement in a Garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives And now begins the blackest Scene of sufferings that ever was acted upon humane Nature Which was so great that the Son of God himself expresseth a more than usual apprehension of it which he discovered by the Agony he was in in which he sweat drops of blood by the earnestness of his Prayer falling upon his knees and praying thrice saying O my Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt Surely this Cup must needs have a great deal of bitterness in it which the Son of God was so earnest to be freed from If there had been nothing in it but what is commonly incident to humane Nature as to the apprehensions of death or pain it seems strange that he who had the greatest innocency the most perfect charity the freest resignation of himself the fullest assurance of the reward to come should express a greater sense of the horror of his sufferings than thousands did who suffer'd for his sake But now was the hour come wherein the Son of God was to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of men wherein he was to bear our griefs and carry our sorrows when he was to be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities now his soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death for now the hour of his enemies was come and the power of darkness And accordingly they improve it they come out against him as a Malefactor with swords and staves and having seized his Person being betray'd into their hands by one of his Disciples they carry him to the High Priests house where his professed enemies presently condemn him of Blasphemy and not content with this they express the greatest contempt of him for they spit in his face they buffet him and smite him with the Palms of their hands they mock him and bid him prophesie who it was that smote him so insolent was their malice grown and so spightful was their indignation against him And so fearful were they lest he should escape their hands that the very next morning early they send him bound to the Roman Governour to have the sentence pronounced against him to whom they accuse him of Sedition and Treason but Pilate upon examination of him declares he found no fault in him which made them heap more unreasonable calumnies upon him being resolved by what means soever to take away his life Nay the price of the blood of the Son of God was fallen so low with them that they preferred the life of a known seditious person and a Murtherer before him And when Pilate being unsatisfied asked still what evil he had done they continue their importunity without any other answer but Crucifie him and making up what wanted in Justice and Reason in the loudness of their clamors And at last seeing the sury and madness of the people with the protestation of his own innocency as to his blood he delivers him up to the people and now he is stripped and scourged and mock'd with a Crown of Thorns a Scarlet Robe and a Reed in his hand all the indignities they could think of they put upon him But though it pleased them to have him exposed to all the ignominies imaginable yet nothing would satisfie them but his blood and therefore he is led forth to be crucified and though so lately scourged and weakened by his sorrows yet he is made to carry his own Cross at least through the City for no other death could satisfie them but the most ignominious and painful And when he was brought to the place of Crucifixion they nail his hands and feet to the Cross and while he was hanging there they deride and mock him still they devide his garments before his face give him Gall and Vinegar to drink and the last act of violence committed upon him was the piercing of his side so that out of his Pericardium issued both water and blood Thus did the Son of God suffer at the hands of unreasonable men thus was the blood of that immaculate Lamb split by the hands of violence and he who left the bosom of his Father to bring us to glory was here treated as if he had been unworthy to live upon the Earth 2. But that which yet heightens these sufferings of Christ is to consider from whom he suffer'd these things it was from sinners which is as much as to say from men if the word were taken in the largest sense of it for all have sinned but being taken by us in opposition to othermen so it implies a greater height of wickedness in these than in other persons But this is not here to be consider'd absolutely as denoting what kind of persons he suffer'd from but with a particular respect to the nature of their
were made of very small things done by other persons as the cure of a blind Man by Vespasian when such multitudes of far more certain and considerable cures can hardly keep up the reputation of any thing extraordinary in him But though his kindness was great to the bodies of men where they were fit objects of pity and compassion yet it was far greater to their souls that being more agreeable to the design of his coming into the World for the other tended to raise such an esteem of him as might make him the more successful in the cure of their Souls And to shew that this was his great business wherever he comes he discourses about these things takes every opportunity that might be improved for that end refuses no company he might do good upon and converses not with them with the pride and arrogance of either the Pharisees or Philosophers but with the greatest meekness humility and patience How admirable are his more solemn discourses especially that upon the Mount and that wherein he takes leave of his Disciples How dry and insipid are the most sublime discourses of the Philosophers compared with these how clearly doth he state our Duties and what mighty encouragements does he give to practise them how forcibly does he perswade men to self-denyal and contempt of the world how excellent and holy are all his Precepts how serviceable to the best interest of men in this life and that to come how suitable and desireable to the souls of good men are the rewards he promises what exact rule of Righteousness hath he prescribed to men in doing as they would be done by with what vehemency doth he rebuke all hypocrisie and Pharisaism with what tenderness and kindness does he treat those that have any real inclinations to true goodness with what earnestness does he invite and with what love doth he embrace all repenting sinners with what care doth he instruct with what mildness doth he reprove with what patience doth he bear with his own disciples Lastly with what authority did he both speak and live such as commanded a reverence where it did not beget a love And yet after a life thus spent all the requital he met with was to be reproached despised and at last crucified O the dreadful effects of malice and hypocrisie for these were the two great enemies which he always proclaimed open war with and these at first contrived and at last effected his cruel death What baseness ingratitude cruelty injustice and what not will those two sins betray men to when they have once taken possession of the hearts of men for we can find nothing else at the bottom of all that wretched conspiracy against our Saviour but that his doctrine and design was too pure and holy for them and therefore they study to take him away who was the author of them 3. We consider in what way and manner our Saviour underwent all these sufferings and this as much as any thing is here propounded to our consideration For it is not only who or what but in what manner he endured the contradiction of sinners that we ought to consider to prevent fainting and dejection of mind So another Apostle tells us that Christ suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committed himself to him that judged righteously He uses none of those ranting expressions which none of the patientest persons in the world were accustomed to of bidding them laugh in Phalaris his Bull and when they were racked with pains to cry out Nil agis dolor he tells them not that it is their duty to have no sense of torments and to be jocund and pleasant when their flesh is torn from them or nailed to a Cross if this be any kind of fortitude it is rather that of a Gladiator than of a wise man or a Christian. The worst of men either through a natural temper of body or having hardned themselves by custom have born the greatest torments with the least expression of grief under them And Panaetius one of the wisest of the Stoicks is so far from making insensibleness of pain the property of a wise man that he makes it not the property of a man The inferiour Creatures are call'd Brutes from their dulness and insensibleness and not meerly from want of reason any further than that one follows from the other bruta existimantur animalium quibus cor durum riget saith Pliny those animals are call'd Brutes which have the hardest hearts and the nearer any of them approach to the nature of man the more apprehensive they are of danger and the more sensible of pain thence Scaliger saith of the Elephant that it is maximabellua sed non maximè bruta though it be the greatest beast it is the least a Brute Stupidity then under sufferings can be no part of the excellency of a man which in its greatest height is in the Beings the most beneath him But when danger is understood and pain felt and Nature groans under it then with patience and submission to undergo it and to conquer all the strugglings of Nature against it that is the duty and excellency of a Christian. If to express the least sense of grief and pain be the highest excellency of suffering the Macedonian boy that suffer'd his flesh to be burnt by a Coal till it grew offensive to all about him without altering the posture of his arm lest he should disturb Alexanders sacrifice out-did the greatest Philosophers of them all Possidonius his pitiful rant over a fit of the Gout so highly commended by Pompey and Tully O pain it is to no purpose though thou beest troublesome I will never confess thou art evil falls extremely short of the resolution of the Macedonian boy or any of the Spartan Youths who would not in the midst of torments so much as confess them troublesome And what a mighty revenge was that that he would not confess it to be evil when his complaint that it was troublesome was a plain argument that he thought it so It is not then the example of Zeno or Cleanthes or the rules of Stoicism which Dionysius Heracleotes in a fit of the Stone complained of the solly of that are to be the measures of patience and courage in bearing sufferings but the example and Precepts of our Lord and Saviour who expressed a great sense of his sufferings but withal the greatest submission under them When Lipsius lay a dying and one of the by-standers knowing how conversant he had been in the Stoicks writings began to suggest some of their Precepts to him Vana sunt ista said he I find all those but vain things and beholding the Picture of our Saviour near his bed he pointed to
preserve the peace of the Christian Church when they are to plant Churches how ready to go about it how diligent in attending it how watchful to prevent all miscarriages among them When they write Epistles to those already planted with what Authority do they teach with what Majesty do they command with what severity do they rebuke with what pity do they chastise with what vehemency do they exhort and with what weighty arguments do they perswade all Christians to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things So that such persons who after all these things can believe that the Apostles were acted only by some extravagant heats may as easily perswade themselves that men may be drunk with sobriety and mad with reason and debauched with goodness But such are fit only to be treated in a dark room if any can be found darker than their understandings are 2. But yet there may be imagined a higher sort of madness than these men are guilty of viz. That when men are convinced that these things could not be done by meer Mechanical causes then they attribute them to the assistance of Spirits but not to the holy and divine but such as are evil and impure A madness so great and extravagant that we could hardly imagine that it were incident to humane nature unless the Scripture had told us that some had thus blasphemed the son of man and either had or were in danger of blaspheming the Holy Ghost too And this is properly blaspheming the Holy Ghost which was not given as our text tells us till after Christs ascension when men attribute all those miraculous gifts which were poured out upon the Apostles in confirmation of the Christian doctrine to the power of an unclean Spirit For so the Evangelist St. Luke when he mentions the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which shall not be forgiven immediately subjoyns their bringing the Apostles to the Synagogues and Magistrates and Powers and adds that the Holy Ghost even that which they so blasphemed in them should teach them in that same hour what they ought to say I deny not but the attributing the miraculous works of Christ who had the Holy Spirit without measure to an evil Spirit was the same kind of sin but it received a greater aggravation after the resurrection of Christ from the dead and the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles For now the great confirmation was given to the truth of all that Christ had said before he had some times concealed his miracles and forbid the publishing of them and to such he appeared but as the son of man of whom it is said that had they known him they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory and St. Peter more expresly and now Brethren I wote that through ignorance you did it as did also your Rulers But now since his resurrection and ascension when God by the effusion of the Holy Ghost hath given the largest and fullest Testimony to the doctrine of the Gospel if men after all this shall go on to blaspheme the Holy Ghost by attributing all these miracles to a Diabolical power then there is no forgiveness to be expected either in this world or the world to come Because this argues the greatest obstinacy of mind the highest contempt of God and the greatest affront that can be put upon the Testimony of the holy Spirit for it is charging the Spirit of truth to be an evil and a lying Spirit By which we see what great weight and moment the Scripture lays upon this pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles and what care men ought to have how they undervalue and despise it and much more how they do reproach and blaspheme it They might as well imagine that light and darkness may meet and embrace each other as that the infernal Spirits should imploy their power in promoting a doctrine so contrary to their interest For Heaven and Hell cannot be more distant than the whole design of Christianity is from all the contrivances of wicked Spirits How soon was the Devil's Kingdom broken his Temples demolished his oracles silenced himself baffled in his great design of deceiving mankind when Christianity prevailed in the world Having thus far asserted the truth of the thing viz. that there was such an effusion of the Holy Spirit now come to consider 2. The nature of it as it is represented to us by Rivers of living waters flowing out of them that believe by which we may understand 1. The plenty of it called Rivers of waters 2. The benefit and usefulness of it to the Church 1. The plentifulness of this effusion of the Spirit there had been some drops as it were of this Spirit which had fallen upon some of the Jewish nation before but those were no more to be compared with these rivers of waters than the waters of Siloam which run softly with the mighty River Euphrates What was the Spirit which Bezaleel had to build the Tabernacle with if compared with that Spirit which the Apostles were inspired with for building up the Church of God what was that Spirit of Wisdom which some were filled with to make garments for Aaron if compared with that Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation which led the Apostles into the knowledge of all Truth What was that Spirit of Courage which was given to the Iudges of old if compared with that Spirit which did convince the world of sin of righteousness and of judgement What was that Spirit of Moses which was communicated to the 70. elders if compared with that Spirit of his son which God hath shed abroad in the hearts of his people What was that Spirit of prophesie which inspired some Prophets in several ages with that pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh which the Apostle tells us was accomplished on the day of Pentecost But these Rivers of Waters though they began their course at Ierusalem upon that day yet they soon overflowed the Christian Church in other parts of the world The sound of that rushing mighty wind was soon heard in the most distant places and the fiery tongues inslamed the hearts of many who never saw them These gifts being propagated into other Churches and many other tongues were kindled from them as we see how much this gift of tongues obtained in the Church of Corinth And so in the History of the Acts of the Apostles we find after this day how the Holy Ghost fell upon them which believed and what mighty signs and wonders were done by them 2. The benefit and usefulness of this effusion of the Spirit like the Rivers of Waters that both refresh and enrich and thereby make glad the City of God The coming down of the Spirit was like the pouring water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground Now God opened the Rivers in
be said to be on purpose to shew Gods severity against the sins of the world And this excellent notion of the beasts being punished for their own sins is improved by him to the vindication of the Scape-Goat from being punished because then saith he the most wicked and corrupt Goat should have been made choice of As though all the design of that great day of expiation had been only to call the Children of Israel together with great solemnity to let them see how a poor Goat must be punished for breaking the Laws which we do not know were ever made for them I had thought our Adversaries had maintained that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation at least had represented and typified the Sacrifice which was to be offered up by Christ and so Socinus and Crellius elsewhere contend he need not therefore have troubled himself concerning the sins of the Goat when it is expresly said That the sins of the people were put on the head of the Goat Whatever then the punishment were it was on the account of the sins of the people and not his own But Crellius urgeth against Grotius that if the Scape-Goat had been punished for the expiation of the sins of the people that should have been particularly expressed in Scripture whereas nothing is said there at all of it and that the throwing down the Scape-Goat from the top of the rock was no part of the Primitive Institution but one of the superstitions taken up by the Iews in after-times because of the ominousness of the return of it and although we should suppose which is not probable that it should dye by famine in the Wilderness yet this was not the death for expiation which was to be by the shedding of blood To this therefore I answer 1. I do not insist on the customs of the later Jews to prove from thence any punishment designed by the primitive institution For I shall easily yield that many superstitions obtained among them afterwards about the Scape-Goat as the stories of the red list turning white upon the head of it the booths and the causey made on purpose and several other things mentioned in the Rabbinical Writers do manifest But yet it seems very probable from the Text it self that the Scape-Goat was not carried into the Wilderness at large but to a steep mountain there For although we have commonly rendered Azazel by the Scape-Goat yet according to the best of the Jewish Writers as P. Fagius tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Goat and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abiit but is the name of a Mountain very steep and rocky near Mount Sinai and therefore probably called by the later Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name of a Rock and to this purpose it is observable that where we render it and let him go for a Scape-Goat into the Wilderness in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to send him to Azazel in the Wilderness as the joyning the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import and the Arabick Version where-ever Azazel is mentioned renders it by Mount Azaz and the Chaldee and Syriack to Azazel so that from hence a carrying the Scape-Goat to a certain place may be inferred but I see no foundation in the Text for the throwing it down from the rock when it was there and therefore I cannot think but that if the punishment intended did lye in that it would have been expresly mentioned in the solemnities of that day which had so great an influence on the expiation of the sins of the people 2. I answer that the Scape-Goat was to denote rather the effect of the expiation than the manner of obtaining it For the proper expiation was by the shedding of blood as the Apostle tells us and thence the live Goat was not to have the sins of the people to bear away into the desert till the High Priest had made an end of reconciling the Holy Place and the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the Altar and by the sprinkling of the blood of the other Goat which was the sin-offering for the people which being done he was to bring the live Goat and to lay his hands upon the head of it and confess over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goat and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the Wilderness and so the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited and he shall let go the Goat in the Wilderness So that the former Goat noted the way of expiation by the shedding of blood and the latter the effect of it viz. that the sins of the people were declared to be expiated by the sending the Goat charged with their sins into a desart place and that their sins would not appear in the presence of God against them any more than they expected that the Goat which was sent into the Wilderness should return among them Which was the reason that afterwards they took so much care that it should not by causing it to be thrown off from a steep rock which was no sooner done but notice was given of it very suddenly by the sounding of horns all over the Land But the force of Socinus his argument from the Scape Goats bearing the sins of the people that therefore that phrase doth not always imply the beaâ—ing of punishment is taken off by Crellius himself who tell us that the Scape-Goat is not said to bear the sins of the people in the Wilderness but only that it carried the sins of the people into the Wilderness which is a phrase of another importance from that we are now discoursing of As will now further appear from the places where it is spoken of concerning our Saviour which we now come particularly to examine The first place insisted on by Grotius with a respect to Christ is 1 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree which saith Crellius is so far from proving that Christ did bear the punishment of our sins that it doth not imply any sufferings that he underwent on the occasion of them He grants that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie to carry up but withall he saith it signifies to take away because that which is taken up is taken away from the place where it was Besides he observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath made to ascend which is frequently rendred by it in the LXX and sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Hebrew word doth often signifie to take away where it is rendred in the Greek by one of those two words 2 Sam. 21. 13. Iosh. 24. 32.
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 Kings sons All that she had for Solomons 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 dye 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 Gods 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 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 righteous 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 Gods proceedings if the righteous should have been dealt withall 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 Christs innocency If there had been no more in these expressions than our Adversaries imagine the Apostles were so careful of Christs 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 Esaiah That he affects little elegancies of words and verbal allusions which makes him
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 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation of sins respect God but us his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist being the exercise of his power for the good of his People 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth because the mactation had no reference to expiation any other than as a preparation for it and Christ not yet being constituted a High-Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse by proving 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God and not to us which appears from the first Institution of a High-Priest mentioned by the Apostle Hebr. 5. 1. For every High-Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins Id est saith Crellius elsewhere ut procuret peragat ea quae ad colendum ac propitiandum numen pertinent i. e. That he may perform the things which appertain to the worshipping and propitiating God We desire no more but that the propiating 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 Gods anger then diverted here by the making this Atonement The like instance we read in Davids time that by the offering burnt-offerings c. the Lord was intreated for the Land and the plague was stayed from Israel By which nothing can be more plain than that the primary intention of such Sacrifices and consequently of the Office of the Priest who offered them did immediately respect the Atoning God But yet Crellius urgeth This cannot be said of all or of the most proper Expiatory Sacrifices but we see it said of more than the meer Sacrifices for sin as appointed by the Law viz. of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings and incense in the examples mentioned So that these Levitical Sacrifices did all respect the atoning God although in some particular cases different Sacrifices were to be offered for it is said the burnt-offering was to make atonement for them as well as the sin and trespass-offerings excepting those sacrifices which were instituted in acknowledgement of Gods Soveraignty over them and presence among them as the daily Sacrifices the meat and drink offerings or such as were meerly occasional c. Thus it is said that Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an Atonement for Israel So that as Grotius observes out of Philo The High-Priest was a Mediator between God and man by whom men might propitiate God and God dispense his favours to men But the means whereby he did procure favoursto men was by atoning God by the Sacrifices which he was by his Office to offer to him We are now to consider how far this holds in reference to Christ for whose sake the Apostle brings in these words and surely would not have mentioned this as the primary Office of a High-Priest in order to the proving Christ to be our High-Priest after a more excellent manner than the Aaronical was unless he had agreed with him in the nature of his Office and exceeded him in the manner of performance For the Apostle both proves that he was a true and proper and not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest and that in such a capacity he very far exceeded the Priests after the order of Aaron But how could that possibly be if he failed in the primary Office of a High-Priest viz. In offering up gifts and sacrifices to God If his Office as High-Priest did primarily respect men when the Office of the Aaronical Priest did respect God To avoid this Crellius makes these words to be only an allusion to the Legal Priesthood and some kind of similitude between Christ and the Aaronical Priests but it is such a kind of allusion that the Apostle designs to prove Christ to be an High-Priest by it and which is of the greatest force he proves the necessity of Christs having somewhat to offer from hence For every High-Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer This is that which he looks at as the peculiar and distinguishing character of a High-Priest for interceding for others and having compassion upon them might be done by others besides the High-Priest but this was that without which he could not make good his name what order soever he were of If Christ then had no proper sacrifice to offer up to God to what purpose doth the Apostle so industriously set himself to prove that he is our High-Priest when he must needs fail in the main thing according to his own assertion How easie had it been for the Iews to have answered all the Apostles Arguments concerning the Priesthood of Christ if he had been such a Priest and made no other Oblation than Crellius allows him When the Apostle proves against the Iews that there was no necessity that they should still retain
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 Christs Pristhood than that is so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven or which is all one in their sense his continuance in Heaven to his second coming Yes saith Crellius his continuance there is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance and therefore it may be said that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins The utmost then that is attributed to Christs being in Heaven in order to the expiation of sins is that he must continue there without doing anything in order to it for if he does it must either respect God or us but they deny though contrary to the importance of the words and the design of the places where they are used that the terms of Christs interceding for us or being an Advocate with the Father for us 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 Christs Oblation or his being in Heaven signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing which hath no influence at all upon it should be looked on as a condition in order to it From whence it appears that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christs Priesthood to respect us and not God they destroy the very nature of it and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it But if Christ be truly a High-Priest as the Apostle asserts that he is from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin which was the thing to be proved 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering and a Sacrifice to God 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to God which is plain from the words of 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 Sacrifice but of a free will offering and the reason Crellius gives is because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost always used of sacrifices which are not expiatory but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice they are not applyed to that which was properly expiatory in it viz. the offering up of the blood for no smell saith he went up from thence but to the burning of the fat and the kidneys which although required to perfect the expiation yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ where all things are persected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day the former discourse hath already discovered For what can be more absurd than to say that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lye in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead But of that already We now come to a punctual and direct answer as to which two things must be enquired into 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applyed 1. For the importance of the phrase The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noahs Sacrifice after the flood of which it is said that he offered burnt-offerings on the Altar and the Lord smelled a savour of rest or a sweet savour Which we are not to imagine in a gross corporeal manner as Crellius seems to understand it when he saith the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the kidneys for surely none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet-smelling savour of it self and we must least of all imagine that of God which Porphyry saith was the property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased and as it were to grow fat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the smell and vapours of blood and flesh by which testimony it withal appears that the same steams in Sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature which we may easily do if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in when it calls it Odorem placabilitatis or the savour of rest as the word properly signifies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word formed from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used for the resting of the Ark v. 4. of the
fell to the share of the Priests and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else generally comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being allowed to be expiated because committed through inadvertency 3. Such whereof a less part was consumed as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation mentioned Levit. 23. 19. whereof the blood was sprinkled only the inwards burnt and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons of which as being private Sacrifices I have here no occasion to speak but only by the Priests in the Court and these had something of expiation in them For thence saith Vatablus the Peace offering was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Expiatorium and the LXX commonly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was That it made peace between God and him that offered it But the great reason I insist on is Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice were in this too the slaying of the Beast the sprinkling of the blood and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of the blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of it on the Altar and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice or the whole there that it was designed for the expiation of sin From whence it follows that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices is very properly used by St. Paul concerning Christs giving up himself for us so that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeable to it But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument to prove that Christs death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. That the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of God to which the mactation is but a bare preparation which he proves Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 44. 10 11. but the oblation only to the Priests To this I answer 1. The mactation may be considered two ways either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice so the shedding of the blood hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin And that by this clear Argument The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul and the reason given is because the life of the flesh is in the blood So that which was the life is the great thing which makes the Atonement and when the blood was shed the life was then given from whence it follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the shedding of the blood and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God which was already shed for the expiation of sins which was therefore necessary to be performed that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts which was the meanest part of the service the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary and least of all that of the High-Priest unless some solemn action 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 goaâ— 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 of the sin-offerings and if our Adversaries opinion hold good that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did iâ— not aâ—one 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 his carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too from whence it will unavoidably followâ— that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest when he entred into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be 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 Christs 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 â—peak 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 bloodshed 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
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 Christs presenting himself in Heaven to be the oblation of himself to God but under the Law the efficacy of the High-Priests 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 Christs 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 Adversaries do so much insist on the High-Priests 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 correspondent 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 renconcile withal 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 Creature which is That when they offer up a Sacrifice they make a solemn execration upon it that if any evil were to fall upon the persons who Sacrificed or upon all Egypt it might be 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 Christs suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices and his blood with the blood of them and consequently his offering up himself must relate not to his entrance into Heaven but to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world From all which it appears how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law Christ is said to offer up himself for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings than by his entrance into Heaven For it is apparent that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend but by our Adversaries own confession Christs oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven hath no immediate respect at all to the expiation of sin only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins as Crellius saith now let us consider what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For 1. on the very same reason that his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation his death is so
too viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation and far more properly so than the other since they make Christs entrance and power the reward of his sufferings but they never make his sitting at the right hand of God the reward of his entrance into Heaven 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross was his own act but his entrance into Heaven was Gods as themselves acknowledge and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be called Christs offering up himself 3. If it were his own act it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins which his death had for our Adversaries say that his death was by reason of our sins and that he 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 Christs entrance into Heaven be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin when Christ before his entrance into Heaven saith that all power was given to him in Heaven and earth and the reason assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God gave him is because he humbled himself and became obedient to death even the death of 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 mentiâ—ned 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 Christs 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. 2. There is as great an inconsistency in making the exercise of Christs power in Heaven an Oblation in any sense as in making Christs 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 respects us and not God Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation how is it possible that the meer exercise of power should be 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 an 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 obliged to maintain 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 meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us which yet is and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his foot-stool 2. That he still speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Iews and therefore the Oblation of Christ must be in such a way as was agreeable to what was used in the Levitical Sacrifices which we have already at large proved he could not do in our Adversaries sense 3 That the Apostle speaks of such a Sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offered to God and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins which they say is meant by sitting at the right hand of God cannot be that Sacrifice for sins Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it which in what sense it can be called a Sacrifice for sins since themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them I cannot understand 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once which if it had been repeated doth imply that Christs sufferings must have been repeated too For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World but the repeated exercise of Christs power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christs frequent suffering nor his frequent entrance into Heaven which might have been done without suffering therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself as was implyed in his death and sufferings 5. He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him when he came into the World but our Adversaries deny that he carried the same Body into Heaven and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven but what was performed here on Earth But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill when they tell us with much confidence that the World into which Christ is here said to come is not to be understood of this World but of that to come which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word when taken absolutely as it is here but to the whole scope and design of the place For he speaks of that World wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were used and the Levitical Law was observed although not sufficient for perfect expiation and so rejected for that end and withal he speaks of that World wherein the chearful obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen for he saith Lo I come to
procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of Gods 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 â—aid to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So Gods 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 Gods acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefâ—re 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 But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterfuge 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 subtilty 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 his 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 dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye but God commâ—ndeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed 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 should expiate sins what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it and no otherwise upon that than meerly as a preparation for it what peculiar emphasis were there in Christs 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 anymore what need that when it is acknowledged by themselves that Christ dyed 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 dye 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 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 praeterperfect 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 praeterperfect 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 praeterperfect 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 Christs expiation of sin it was yet to come after Christs 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 sound by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and 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 Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of Holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sácrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Ver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full Power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Sripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is
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 fins 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 Christs mediation and that the obstacle did not lye upon his part therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreement 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 Christs 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 Gods having reconciled the World to himself by Iesus Christ is nothing else but Christs 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 Christs 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 Ministery 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 Ministery 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 Gods 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 Christs 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 reconcilation 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 whereever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconciliation was to be made As for that objection concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Men but 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. Having thus far proved that the effects of