it should have been more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not I say to insist upon that the Apostle manifests that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption by his following discourse for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christs Oblation of himself in Heaven he would have compared Christs entrance into Heaven in order to it with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies and his argument had run thus For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it and as plainly asserts the same v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Why doth the Apostle here speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expiation of sins by the means of death if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and withall the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the future but of sins that were under the first Testament not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it but such as were committed during the time of it although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them And to confirm this sense the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christs entrance into Heaven but of his dying v. 16 17 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High-Priests entring into the Holy of holies yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in sacrifice And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice and not to the sprinkling of the blood before the Mercy-seat and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him and was before shed at the Altar Neither can it with any reason be said that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death but that he is in Heaven a mercifull High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God and there ever lives to make intercession for them Crellius answers That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christs sitting at the right hand of God yet it is not there said that the expiation of sins was made before Christs entrance into Heaven for those saith he are to be considered as two different things for a Prince first enters into his Palace before he sits upon his throne And therefore saith he Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins before he sate down at the right hand of his Father not that it was done by his death but by his entrance into Heaven and offering himself to God there by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high and thereby the full power of remission of sins and giving eternal life To which I answer 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christs entrance into Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God which latter implying no more but the glorious state of Christ in Heaven his entrance into Heaven doth imply it For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it but our Saviour before that tells us that all power and authority was committed to him and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory and given him in consideration of his sufferings as the Apostle plainly asserts and he became obedient to death even the death of the Cross wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven and presenting himself to God there a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God 2. Supposing we should look on these as distinct there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance considered as distinct from the other For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christs power and this being only the means to that power how could Christ expiate sins by that power which he had not But of this I have spoken before and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God Thus much may suffice to prove that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice which do respect the sins committed do properly agree to the death of Christ. I now come to that which respects the person considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation By the wrath of God I mean the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature to punish sin in those who commit it by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation I mean that in consideration of which God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us I shall prove by those places of Scripture which speak of it But Crellius would seem to acknowledge That if Grotius seem to contend for no more than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for but then he adds That this deliverance from the wrath to come is not by the death but by the power
of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of â—…n Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of â—…e blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of 〈◊〉 on the Altar and the consuming of the part â—…f 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 properâ—y used by S. Paul concerning Christs giving up himself for us â—o that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary â—o the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeaâ—… to it But Crellius hath yet a further Argumeâ—… to prove that Christs death cannot be 〈◊〉 meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. 〈◊〉 the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the â—…lation whereby the thing is consecrated to 〈◊〉 honour and service of God to which the maâ—…tion is but a bare preparation which 〈◊〉 proves Because the slaying the sacrifice 〈◊〉 belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 〈◊〉 10 11. but the oblation only to the Prieâ—… To this I answer 1. The mactation may 〈◊〉 considered two ways either with a respâ—… to the bare instrument of taking away tâ—… life or to the design of the Offerer of thâ—… which was to be sacrificed As the macâ—…tion hath a respect only to the instrumeâ—â— so it is no otherways to be considered thâ—… as a punishment but as it hath a respect 〈◊〉 him that designs it for a Sacrifice so tâ—… shedding of the blood hath an immediâ—… influence on the expiation of sin Aâ—… that by this clear Argument The blood 〈◊〉 said to make an Atonement for the soul 〈◊〉 the reason given is because the life of 〈◊〉 flesh is in the blood So that which was 〈◊〉 life is the great thing which makes 〈◊〉 atonement and when the blood was shâ—… the life was then given from whence follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for atonement lay in the shedding of â—he blood for that end Thence the Apostleâ—ttributes â—ttributes 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 〈◊〉 is expressely said that he should not oâ—… kill the bullock of the sin-offering which 〈◊〉 for himself but the goat of the sin-offeriâ—â— which is for the people And although thâ—… Talmudists dispute from their Traditioâ—… on both sides whether any one else mighâ—… on the day of expiation slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest yet it iâ—… no news for them to dispute against thâ—… Text and the Talmud it self is clear thaâ— the High-Priest did it From whence iâ—… appears there was something peculiar oâ—… 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 if not alone yet chiefly represent thâ—… 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 follow that Christ did not enter upon his Office of High-Priest when he enter'd into Heaven but when the Sacrifice was to be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins It is then to no purpose at all if Crelliâ—… 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 those 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 speak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ those were the Jews 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 Jews did but if we consider it with a respect to him that offer'd up his life to God then we say that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it it being designed for the expiation of sin and by vertue of this blood-shed for that end he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies there ever living to make intercession for us But the vertue of the consequent acts depends upon the efficacy of the blood shed for expiation otherwise the High-Priest might have enter'd with the same effect into the Holy of Holies with any other blood besides that which was shed on purpose as a sin-offering for expiation of the sins of the people which it was unlawfull for him to doe And from hence it is that the Apostle to the Hebrews insists so much on the comparison between the blood of Christ and the blood of the legal sacrifices and the efficacy of the one far above the other in its power of expiation which he needed not to have done if the shedding of his blood had been only a preparation for his entrance on his Priesthood in Heaven So that the proper notion of a Sacrifice for sin as it notes the giving the life of one for the expiation of the sins of another doth properly lye in the mactation though other sacrificial acts may be consequent upon it So it was in the animales hostiae among the Romans in which saith Macrobius Sola anima Deo sacratur of which he tells us Virgil properly speaks in those words Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis And that we may the better understand what he means by the anima here he saith elsewhere
because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the remission of sins and to the same purpose Coloss. 1. 14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3. 25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is That those words which do properly signifie the thing it self may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it when the performance of the thing doth follow by virtue of that declaration which then happens when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it And in this sense Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose But this answer is by no means sufficient upon these considerations 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words as Crellius himself confesseth and yet he assigns no reason at all why we ought to depart from it unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert If the most proper expressions for this purpose are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries none else could ever do it so that it had been impossible for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them It seems very strange that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin if nothing else were meant by it but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense why are they so frequently used to this purpose why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us and tell us plainly that Christ dyed only to declare his Fathers will but what ever other words might signifie this was the only true meaning of them But what miserable shifts are these when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death Gods readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of Gods readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring Gods will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if in no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe that God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the Meritorious cause for procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of 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 said 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 therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterfuge For therein lies