Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

of the sacrifices themselves, with their oblation on the altar. How then could they typify Christ and his sacrifice, if that consisted not at all in his death and blood-shedding which they did represent; but in his entrance into heaven, and presenting himself there unto God, which they did not represent at all. This concession, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ was typified by any sacrifices, whereof no part nor remembrance was carried into the sanctuary, destroys the whole hypothesis of our adversaries. 2. Nothing that we do is in any sense such a sacrifice as whereby sin is expiated. And although our faith is the means, whereby we are interested in the one sacrifice of Christ, by which our sins are expiated once for ever, and we thereby, according to God's appointment, obtain the forgiveness of our sins; yet no duties of ours are any where called sacrifices, but such as are fruits of gratitude for the pardon of sin received by virtue of that one sacrifice of Christ. 3. The high priest was a true real type of Christ, but not his only type; Melchisedec was so also; and so were all the ordinary priests of the house of Aaron, who served at the altar. 4. He is greatly mistaken in his last assertion, whereof he gives no other proof, but only ‘qua de re mirum est si quisquam dubitet. And this is, that the ‘priests under the law were types of all Christians, and their sacrifices of ours; and that this belongeth unto the economy of the new covenant. For I do not only doubt of it, but also expressly deny it, and that on such grounds as will leave no cause for admiration in any sober person. For, 1. All the priests of the house of Aaron, were of the very same office with the high priest. Aaron and his sons were at the same time called to the same office, and set apart in the same manner, Exod. xxviii. 1, xxix. 9. If, therefore, the high priest were in his office the type of Christ, the other priests in their office could not be types of us, unless we have the same office with Christ himself, and are made mediators with him. 2. The sacrifices offered by the other priests, were of the same nature with that or those which were offered by the high priest himself. For although the entrance once a-year into the holy place was peculiar unto him, yet he had no sacrifice of any especial kind, as burntoffering, sin-offering, or trespass-oifering, peculiar unto him, but the other priests offered the same. If, therefore, the sacrifice of the high priest, was a type of the sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifices of the other priests could not be types of ours, unless they are of the same kind with that of Christ, which is not yet affirmed. 3. The truth is, the whole people under the law were types of believers under the gospel, in the highest of their privileges; and therefore the priests were not so. We are now kings and priests; and the apostle Peter expressing this privilege, 1 Pet. ii. 5, doth it in the words spoken of the body of the people or church of old, Exod. xix. 6. Nothing, therefore, is more vain than this supposition.

Fiftthly. The principal argument whereby we prove that Christ was a priest on the earth is taken from the nature of the sacrifice which he offered asa priest. But whereas this cannot be duly managed without a full consideration and debate of all the properties, ends, and concernments of that sacrifice, which is not our present subject nor design, it must, as it was intimated before, be remitted to its proper place.

§ 10. It remaineth that we consider the pretences and pleas of our adversaries in the defence of their opinion. It is that, 1 confess, which they have no concern in for its own sake, being only a necessary consequent of their judgment, concerning the office of the priesthood itself. Wherefore, for that the most part they content themselves with a bare denial that he was a priest on the earth, the proof of their negation they mixed with the description of the office, and its discharge. Wherefore, to show how little they are able to prove what they pretend to, I shall represent their plea in the words of one of the chief masters of that sect, that the reader may see what is the true state of the controversy between them and us in this matter, which they industriously endeavour to conceal, and then consider their proofs in particular. This is Valentinus Smalcius in his book de Regno Christ. cap. 23, which is, De Christi sacerdotio, whose words ensue.

‘Deinde considerandum etiam est 1. totam hance rem, que per sacerdotii: vocabulum in Christo describitur, esse fizuratam, qua scilicet explicantur ea que sub veteri feedere olim extabant. Quemadmodum enim sub veteri faedere Deus pontifices esse voluit 2. qui causam populi apud Deum agerent: sic etiam quia Jesus Christus causam populi divini in ecelo agit, ideo ipse sacerdos, et hoc opus illius sacerdotium, appellantur. Potest hoc totum ex eo apparere si consideretur in sola quodammodo Epist. ad Heb. Christi quatenus sacerdos est et sacerdotii ejus mentionem fieri; Kt tamen impossibile est alios Apostolos in suis scriptis rei tam insignis, sine qua Christi dignitas consistere nequit, nullam mentionem facere.’

Answ. 1. It is not much that I shall observe on these words, and shall therein principally respect the perpetual sophistry of these men. It is somewhat plain, indeed, that all things spoken about the priesthood of Christ are figurative, and nothing real or proper. And, therefore, he speaks of it as a thing utterly of another nature that is intended, only in Christ it is described per sacerdotii vocabulum, ‘by this word the priesthood.’ But the sober Christian reader will judge, whether there be nothing but a mere occasional abuse of that word intended by the Holy Ghost, im that full, and large description which he hath given us of this office of Christ, its duties, acts, adjuncts, and exercise, with the importance of these things unto our faith and consolation. 2. Who would not think that those expressions, first concerning the high priest, qui causam populi apud Deum ageret, ‘ who should deal with God on the behalf of the people; and that concerning Christ, qui causam populi divini in ccelo agit,‘ who pleads the holy people’s cause in heaven, were so far equivalent, especially the one being produced in the illustration of the other, as that the thing signified should, if not be of the same kind, yet at least some way or other agree? But no such matter is intended. For in the first proposition, God is expressly asserted to be the immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of the high priest under the law, according to the Scripture; but in the latter, ‘causam populi in ceelo agit,’ which is ascribed unto Christ, nothing is intended but the exercise of his love and power in heaven towards his people for their relief, which is a thing quite of another nature. By these contrary senses of seemingly equivalent expressions, all analogy between the old priesthood and that of Christ, is utterly destroyed. 3. It is falsely pretended, that this office of Christ is not formally mentioned by other divine writers, besides the apostle in this Epistle to the Hebrews. He is expressly called a priest in Old ‘Testament prophecy, and all acts of this office are expressly mentioned and declared in sundry other places of the New Testament, which have been before produced. And although it becomes not us to call the Spirit of God to an account, or to expect an express reason to be assigned why he teacheh and revealeth any truth, more directly and expressly in one place of the Scripture than in another, it being an article of our faith that what he doth, he doth wisely, and on the most rational motives; yet we are not altogether in the dark as to the reason, why the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ was more openly and plainly taught in this Epistle, than in any other place of Scripture. It was the prefiguration of it, and preparation for it, which the church of the Hebrews had received in their Mosaical institution, which was the occasion hereof. For whereas the whole economy of their priesthood and sacrifices had no other end or use, but to prefigure and represent those of the Lord Christ; upon his coming, and the accomplishment of what was typified by them, they were to cease and to be removed out of the church. But these Hebrews by the long use of them, had contracted an inveterate persuasion that they had an excellency, use, and efficacy in the worship of God upon their own account, and were therefore still to be continued and observed. On this occasion the declaration of the nature and use of the priesthood of Christ in the church, was not only opportune and seasonable, but necessary and unavoidable. It was so, that those Hebrews who did sincerely believe the gospel, and yet supposed that the old legal institutions were in force, and obligatory, might be delivered from so pernicious an error. And in like manner it was necessary with respect to them, who being satisfied in their cessation and removal, were to be instructed in what was the design of God in their institution, and what was their use; whereby they might at once discern, that they were not a mere burden of chargeable and useless outward observances, and yet how great and excellent a glory was exhibited in their stead, now under the gospel. Besides, whereas God was now giving up the whole Scripture to the use of the church, what better season or occasion could be taken, to declare the harmony and relation that is between the Old Testament and the New; the analogy between the institutions of the one and the other; the preparations that were made in the shadows of the one, for the introduction of the substance of the other; and so at once to present a scheme of divine wisdom and grace in both; than this of the instruction of this church of the Hebrews in their translation out of the one state into the other, which was peculiar to them, and wherein the Gentiles had no share. These things, I say, (with holy submission to the sovereign will and wisdom of the Holy Ghost) rendered this time and place most convenient, for the fixing and stating the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ in a peculiar manner.

But our author adds; ‘Quod igitur ipse Christus cum adhue mortalis esset, promisit, se futurum cum suis singulis diebus usque ad consummationem seculi; se eos non relicturum orphanos, sed eis daturum os et sapientiam cui nemo possit resistere. Et quod idem ex mortuis resuscitatus dixit Johanni, ne metuas, ecce vivo in secula seculorum; et divo Paulo, ne metuas sed loquere et non tace, quia ego tecum sum; quod denique apud Apostolos est, Jesum Christum caput esse Ecclesiz et Kcclesiam esse ejus corpus, Ecclesiam ab eo foveri, Christum nos liberare a futura ira, hoc est, autore Epistole ad Hebreeos, Jesum Christum pontificem nostrum esse. Add hereunto what he instructs us in a little afterwards. ‘Ipse Christus et sacerdos factus est et oblatio; hoc est absque figuris loquendo; Quando Christus in coelum ascendens factus est immortalis, et cum Deo habitare czepit in loco illo sanctissimo, ceepit nostre salutis curam talem gerere, qualem se gesturum antea promiserat.’

Answ. This is in some measure plain dealing, and needful to the cause wherein these men are engaged. For although no great matter at first view seems to be contained herein, yet upon the truth of what he avers, depends all the opposition they make to the real sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. _ Hence, therefore, it is evident, what is the true state of the controversy between these men and us, about the priesthood of Christ. It is not, indeed, about the nature of that office, nor about the time and place of its exercise, though they needlessly compel us to treat about them also. But the sole question is, whether Christ have any such office or not. For if this be all they grant, which this man asserts, as indeed it is, namely, ‘that the Lord Christ, upon the account of some actings of his, which are no one of them properly or peculiarly sacerdotal, is only called an high priest figuratively, by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews,’ then indeed he neither hath, nor ever had any such office at all. And this is the true state of our controversy with them, and with all by whom the satisfaction of Christ is denied, namely, whether Christ be the high priest of the church or not. And herein the Holy Ghost himself must answer for us and our profession.

This then is the substance of what they intend. The power, love, and care which the Lord Christ exerciseth in heaven towards his church, makes him to be figuratively called our high priest, and in the same manner to be said to offer himself to God. But whence then comes it to pass, that whereas, according to the notion and understanding that is given us in Scripture, of the nature of priest and sacrifice, suited to the apprehension of all mankind about them, and which they answer or they are nothing, there is no similitude or likeness between them and what Christ was and did, that they are expressed by these terms which are apt to lead unto thoughts of things quite of another kind, than, as it seems, are intended? Why this, saith Smalcius, was ‘ ex nimio figurate loquendi studio,’ ‘ out of an excessive desire in the holy writers to speak figuratively; an account which neither any wise man will, nor good man ought to be satisfied with, And yet, according to Smalcius, they much fail in their design. or whereas no wise man doth ever use figurative expressions, unless he judge them necessary to set off the things he intends to express, and to strengthen the apprehension of them, it has, if we may believe this author, unhappily fallen out otherwise with the writers of the New Testament in this matter. For instead of heightening or enlarging the things which they intended, by all their figurative expressions they do but lessen or diminish them. For so he informs us; ‘Hoc tum ob alias causas, tum ob hanc etiam hic primum annotare voluimus, ut sciamus in istis figurate loquendi modis, quantumyis fortasse cuipiam videri possit, Christo summam in eis preestantiam tribui; tamen minus ei tribui quam res est. No man certainly could ever have steered a more unhappy course. For no doubt they designed to express the excellency of Christ, and the usefulness of his mediation, im these things unto the church. But in the pursuit of it, they wholly omit those plain and proper expressions whereby they might have fully declared it, to the comfort of the church and the establishment of our faith; and betake themselves absolutely unto such figurative expressions, as whereby the dignity of Christ is diminished, and less is ascribed unto him than is due. Certainly men have been in the use of making very bold with the Scriptures and their own consciences, who can satisfy themselves with such imaginations.

But yet when all is done, all this, as hath been manifested before, will not serve the turn, nor disprove our assertion, that the Lord Christ was a priest whilst on the earth; for all the things which they thus ascribe to him, were then discharged by him. Wherefore we shall further consider what direct opposition they make hereunto.

§ 11. It is no matter at all whom we fix upon to call to an account herein. Their wits are barren in a peculiar manner on this subject, so that they all say the same things one after another, without any considerable variation. The reader, if he please, may satisfy himself herein by consulting Socinus, Volkelius, Ostorodus, Smalcius, Moscorovius, Crellius, and Slichtingius, in the places before cited. I shall therefore confine myself. to him who hath last appeared in the defence of this cause, and who seems ‘to have put the newest gloss upon it., This is Lud. Woolzogen, in his Compend. Relig. Christianze, Sect. 51, whose words ensue.

‘Preeterea etiam hoc nobis paucis attingendum est, quod sacerdotale Christi munus non bene intelligant illi qui statuunt, Christum sacrifictum expiatorium pro peccatis nostris in cruce peregisse et absolvisse. Nam in veteri federe, cujus (1) sacrificia fuere typi sacrificii Christi, non fuit factum sacrificium (2) expiatorium in mactatione victime seu pecudis, sed tantum fuit preeparatio quedam ad sacrificium. Verum in eo (3) consistebat sacrificium, quando Pontifex Maximus cum sanguine ingrediebatur in Sanctum Sanctorum, atque (4) eum Deo offerebat et sacrificabat. Sacrificare enim proprie non est (5) mactare, sed offerre et Deo sacrare.’

Answ. 1. It is acknowledged, that the sacrifices under the Old Testament were types of the sacrifice of Christ, that is, all of them were so which were expiatory, or appointed to make atonement. Although therefore these men are wary, yet they standin such an unstable and slippery place, as that they often reel and betray themselves. or if all expiatory sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, most of them being perfect and complete without carrying any of their blood into the sanctuary, that of Christ must be so before his entrance into heaven. 2. For what he affirms of the expiatory sacrifice, that is the anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation, that it consisted not in the slaying of the sacrifice, which was only a certain preparation thereunto, is either sophistical or false. It is sophistical, if by ‘mactatio pecudis he intends only the single act of slaying the sacrifice; for so it is granted that was not the entire sacrifice, but only a part of it; the oblation of it on the altar was also required to its perfection. But it is false if he intend thereby all that was done in the offering of the beast, namely its adduction to the altar, its mactation, the effusion of its blood, the sprinkling thereof, the laymg of the offering on the altar, the consumption of it by fire, all which belonged thereto. All these things, even all that preceded the entrance of the high priest into the holy place, are distinguished from what was done afterwards, and are to be considered under that head which he calls, the slaying of the victim. But then his assertion is false, for the sacrifice consisted therein, as we have proved. 3. That the expiatory sacrifice did not consist in the entrance and appearance of the high priest in the holy place, with the blood of the beast offered, is manifest from hence; because he was commanded to offer the beast in sacrifice before his entrance into the sanctuary, which was a consequent of the sacrifice itself, and represented the effects of it. 4. That the high priest sacrificed the blood unto God, as he affirms, in the sanctuary, is an assertion that hath no countenance given to it in the Scripture, nor hath it so from any common notion concerning the nature of sacrifices; and the atonement that is said to be made for the holy place by the sprinkling of the blood towards the mercy-seat, was effected by the sacrifice as offered before, whereof that ceremony was a sign and token. 5. That to sacrifice and to slay are the same in the original, so as that both those actions, that is, sacred and common slaying, are expressed ofttimes by the same word, Ἵ have before demonstrated. But withal I grant, that to a complete sacrifice, the ensuing oblation on the altar was also required. Hence was the sacrifice offered and consecrated to God.

But he endeavours to confirm his assertion with some testimonies of our

apostle. ‘Et hoe est quod ait autor Epistole ad Hebraos; (1) In secundum tabernaculum (id est in sanctissimum sacrarium) semel quotannis solus pontifex, non absque sanguine ingreditur, quem offert pro seipso et pro populi ignorantiis, Heb. ix. 7, quibus verbis elucet Pontificem Maximum tum demum sacrificasse, et obtulisse, quando sanguinem intulit in Sanctissimum Sanctuarium, et cum eo coram Deo apparnit. Hee apparitio ac oblatio, demum (2) expiatio et redemptio a peccatis censenda est. Ita igitur in Christo quoque, qui et Pontifex Maximus et simul etiam victima esse debuit, mactatio corporis ejus in cruce nihil aliud quam preparatio fuit ad verum sacrificium. Sacrificium autem ipsum peractum est tum, cum in Sanctuarium Celeste ingressus est cum proprio sanguine suo, ibique Deo seipsum tanquam victimam obtulit et exhibuit, necnon tanquam eternus Pontifex pro nobis apud Deum intercedit, nostram expiationem procurat.’

Answ. 1. I understand not the force of: the proof from this testimony, to the purpose of our author. The high priest did enter into the holy place with the blood of the sacrifice. What will thence ensue? Had it been common blood before, aid now first consecrated unto God, something might be collected thence in compliance with his design. But it was the blood of the sacrifice, which was dedicated and offered unto God before; the blood of the sacrifice that was slain, which was only carried into the most holy place and sprinkled there, as the representation of its virtue and efficacy. In like manner, Jesus Christ the Lamb of God that was slain and sacrificed for us, after he had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unto God, procuring thereby redemption for us in his blood, entered into heaven, there in the presence of God to represent the virtug of his oblation, and by his intercession (prefigured not by the offering, but by the sprinkling of blood) to make application thereof unto us. 2. Redemption did in no sense follow the appearance of the high priest in the most holy place typically, nor the entrance of the Lord Christ into heaven really; but it is constantly assigned to his death and blood-shedding, which invincibly proves that therein also there his obiation of himself did consist; see 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. Expiation may be considered either in respect of impetration or of application. In the first regard, it did not follow, but pre-: cede the entrance of the priest into the holy place; for the sacrifice was offered without to make atonement for sin; and the same atonement was made in sundry sacrifices, the blood of which was never sprinkled in the holy place. In the latter sense alone it may be said to follow it, which we contend not about.

His next testimony is from Heb. ix. 11, 12, the words whereof he only recites, without attempting any improvement or application of them. ‘ But | Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.’

Had he attempted any proof from these words, he would have found himself at a loss where to have fixed the argument. Wherefore he contents himself with the bare sound of the words, supposing that may seem to favour his pretension. For it is plain from this text, 1. That Christ entered into heaven as our high priest, and not that he might become such; which is sufficient to scatter all his imaginations about this 5 of his. 2. That he entered into heaven by his own blood, which was shed and poured out in his sacrifice before that entrance; for really he carried no blood with him, as the high priest did of old, but only was accompanied ‘with the efficacy and virtue of that which was shed before. 3. He is said to have obtained eternal redemption before his entrance into heaven, that being expressed as past upon his entrance, which inyincibly proves, that his sacrifice was antecedent thereto.

His last testimony is Heb. viii. 4, which most of them make use of as their shield and buckler in this cause. ‘ For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. But the plain design and intention of the apostle allows them no relief from these words. He had proved invincibly, that the Lord Christ was to be a high priest; and had shown in some instances the nature of that office of his. Here, to confirm what he had so declared, he lays it down by the way of concession, that if there were no other priesthood but that which is earthly and carnal, or which belonged to the Judaical church, he could not have been a priest at all, which yet he had proved that it was necessary he should be. And the reason of this concession he adds, from the possession of that office by the priests of the house of Aaron, in a manner which was peculiar and exclusive, as ver. 5. Hence it unavoidably ensues, that he must have a priesthood of another kind, or different from that of Aaron, which he expressly asserts as his conclusion, ver. 6. A priest he must be: a priest after the order of them who offered gifts according to the law, he could not be; and therefore he had another and therefore a more excellent priesthood.

§ 12. Under these testimonies, which are commonly pleaded by them all, to deprive the Loyd Christ of this office, at least whilst he was on the earth, I shall add the consideration of one with the argument from it, which I find not insisted on by any of them but Smalcius alone. De

Reg. Chr. cap. 23. ‘ Hane Christi oblationem Autor Epistole ad Hebreeos volens innuere, et aperte demonstrare eam tum demum esse perfectam cum Christus in ccelum ascendit, ait; talem decebat nos habere Pontificem, sanctum, labe carentem, impollutum, segregatum a peccatoribus, et excelsiorem coelis factum; et paulo infra ait; Jesum Christum semetipsum Deo immaculatum obtulisse per spiritum eternum; intelligens per ista epitheta, sancti, labe carentis, impolluti, segregati a peccatoribus, et innocentis, non Christi sanctitatem quoad mores; hac enim semper perfecte Christus fuit praeditus, etiam, antequam pontifex noster factus est; sed eam sanctitatem que Christi naturam respicit. Quze Christi natura, quamdiu in terris fuit, qui fratribus per omnia fuit assimilatus, infirmitati et mortalitati obnoxia fuit; nunc vero ab ea in omnem eternitatem libera est.’

Answ. 1. These properties of holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, which the apostle ascribes unto our Lord Jesus as our high priest, Heb. vii. 26, as also his offering himself without spot, ch. ix. 14, this man - ascribes to Christ as exalted in heaven, in contradistinction to what he was whilst on the earth, namely, because he was so holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, in heaven. Now, if it doth not hence follow, that he was impure, defiled, guilty, like other sinners whilst he was on the earth, yet it doth undeniably, and that is the matter contended for, that he was not holy, harmless, and undefiled, in the sense here intended by the apostle. How this can be freed from open blasphemy, I am not able to discern.

2. He is not secured by his ensuing distinction, that the Lord Christ was before whilst on the earth perfectly holy as to his* manners, but that the epithets here used respect his nature. For not to assign all these properties unto the nature of Christ from the instant of his conception, or to deny them to belong thereto, is no less contrary to the Scripture, and really blasphemous, than to deny him to have been holy with respect to his life and conversation. For he was the Holy Thing that was born of the Virgin, and as he was born of her by virtue of the miraculous creation and sanctification of his nature in the womb, whereof I have treated elsewhere at large.

3. Here is a supposition included, that all the difference between Christ and us, whilst he was in this world, consisted only in the use of his freedom unto the perfect obedience wherein we fail and come short. That his nature was absolutely holy and impeccable, ours sinful and defiled, is cast out of consideration; and yet to deny this difference between him and us, 1s no less blasphemous than what we before rejected.

4. Christ in this world was indeed obnoxious to sufferings, and death itself, as having a nature on that account like to bis brethren in all things. To suppose that he was obnoxious to infirmity and mortality, because he was not yet holy, harmléss, undefiled, and separate from sinners, 15 injurious to his person, and derogatory from his love. For it was not from the necessity of his own condition in human nature, that he was exposed to sufferings or to death, but he became so by voluntary condescension for our sakes, Phil. ii. 5—8. We are obnoxious to these things on our own account, he only on ours. |

5. In the death of Christ, when he shed his blood, he was ἀμνὸς apwpoc καὶ aoridoc, ‘a Lamb without spot and without blemish,’ 1 Pet. i. 19, ashe is said to offer himself, ἀμωμοὸν τῳ Θεῳ, “ without spot to God, Heb. ix. 14. He was therefore no less so before and in his death than after. It is indeed surprising, to be put by one professing himself a Christian, to the work of proving the Lord Christ to have been in his entire nature in this world, holy and harmiess.

6. He doth not in the least relieve himself from these impieties, by his ensuing discourses on Eph. ν. 26, 27, that he ‘might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word; that he might present unto himself a glorious church, not haying spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. He contends that the making of the church holy and without blemish in this place, concerns its glorified state, because it is therewithal said to be a glorious church. In the same sense, therefore, as he affirmeth, is Christ said to be holy when he was glorified, and not before. But he adds herein to the weight and number of his preceding enormities. For in what sense soever the church is said to be made holy, or to be sanctified, whether it be in grace, or as instated in glory, _ it is so by being washed and cleansed from the spots, stains, and filth, which originally it had. But to ascribe such a sanctification or making holy to the Lord Christ, is the highest blasphemy imaginable.

We may, therefore, firmly conclude, with the whole church of God, according to the Scripture, and the nature of the thing itself, that the Lord Christ was a priest, and executed his priestly office whilst he was on the earth, even then when he offered up himself to God, with strong cries and supplications, at his death on the cross.

§ 13. That which yet remains, as belonging to our present design, is the consideration of the direct and immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or the exercising his mediatory power by virtue of his priestly office. This we have declared before, and proved, namely, that it is God himself. Our meaning is, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the high priest of the church, acts on its behalf with God, doing those things which are to be done with him, according to the covenant before explained. As a king and prophet, he acts in the name of God towards us; as a priest, he acts towards God on our behalf. This, the whole economy of the Aaronical priesthood doth confirm, and the very nature of the great duties of this office, oblation and intercession, do necessarily infer. Doth Christ offer himself im sacrifice unto God or unto ts? Doth he intercede with God or us? It is no small evidence of the desperate cause of our adversaries, that they are forced to put uncouth and horrid senses on these sacerdotal duties, to accommodate them to their sentiments. So, after that Smalcius had told us, that these things were thus expressed in Scripture, ‘ex nimio figurate loquendi studio,’ so traducing the wisdom and sobriety of the penmen thereof, he adds in the explication of that figurative expression, as he would have it, of Christ’s intercession: ‘Cum igitur de Christo dicitur eum pro nobis interpellare, aliud nihil dicitur, quam eum potentia illa sua sibi data, curam nostri gerere.’ It is not easily conceivable, how a greater violence can be offered toa sacred expression. By such interpretations, it is imposible to put an orthodox sense on all the writings of Smalcius. But in the vindication of his exposition of Christ’s intercession, he adds, ‘ That the power which Christ exerciseth in his eare of the church, and all his actings towards it, he received of God, and therefore, in the use of it, he is said to make intercession for us;’ that is, he doth one thing, and is said to do another. What he doth, is not said, namely, that he acts in his power towards the church; and what he doth not, that he is said to do, namely, to make intercession with God for us. The arguments whereby we confirm the truth asserted, have been before declared and confirmed. Wherefore, to put a close to this whole disputation, and to give the reader a specimen of the subtilty and perpetual tergiversation of our adversaries in this cause, wherein also, occasion will be administered farther to explain sundry things relating unto this office of Christ, I shall examine strictly the whole discourse of Crellius on this subject, and therein, give a peculiar instance of the sophistical ability of these men, in evading the force of arguments and testimonies from the Scripture.

§ 14. Grotius proves, that the first actings of Christ as a priest, were towards God, from Heb. v. 1, and ch. vii. 3, whereunto Crellius replies,

cap. 10, part 3, p. 474. ‘Postrema hee verba ita sunt comparata, ut per se Socini sententi# non repugnent, Grotium nil juvent. Fatetur enim Socinus quoque et satis clare docet Auctor 1). Heb. 1. 17, actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, et sic ejus sacrificium expiatorium esse ex eorum numero que pro homine fiunt apud Detm; ut alia hic deductione, cum de Christi sacrificio queeratur, non fuerit opus. De sensu ergo queritur, cum de verbis constat.’

Answ. 1. The agreement which he pretends between Grotius and himself in this matter, as to the words of the apostle, is enough with sober men to put an end to the whole controversy. The question is, whether Christ, as a high priest, did act principally towards God, or towards us. Towards God, saith the apostle, and Grotius from him. We are agreed, saith Crellius, about these words, all the question is about their sense. As how? namely, whether they signify that Christ exerciseth this office towards God, οὐ towards us. For thisis that which after along tergiversation he comes to:, page 477, Talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat Apostolus que circa nos primo yersetur, non yero circa Deum. ‘The apostle intimateth plainly, that such is the (sacerdotal) actings of Christ in this matter, as is first exercised towards us, and not towards God.’ Whatever, therefore, is otherwise pretended, that question between him and us, is about the words themselves. and their truth, and not about their sense and meaning. For if it be true that the Lord Christ, ca®torarat ὑπερ ανθρωπων Ta προς Tov Θεον, is ‘appointed as a priest for man, or on their behalf, in the things belonging unto God,’ or to be done with God, Heb. y. 1, and that in an especial manner, εἰς τὸ προσφερειν δωρα τε και Suovac, ch. viii. 3, ‘to offer gifts and sacrifices to God,’ the whole sense is granted which we plead for. If he is not so appointed, if he doth not do so, that is, if he were not ordained to act with God in the behalf of men, if he did not offer sacrifice for them, or for the expiation of their sins, then are not these words true, and it is in vain to contend about the sense of them. 2. I shall only further observe the sophistry of that expression, ‘actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, ‘that action of Christ whereby he is a priest.’ For he intends that Christ is only denominated a priest, for some action he doth perform; whereas, in truth he performs those actions by virtue of his priesthood, and could not perform them were he not a priest in office.

Having laid this foyndation, Crellius enters upon a large discourse, wherein he doth nothing but perpetually divert from the argument in hand, and by a multitude of words, strive to hide himself from the sense of it, Take him when he supposeth himself out of its reach, and he speaketh plainly. So he doth, Lib. de Caus. Mort. Christi, page 7, ‘Cum consideratur Christus ut sacerdos, etsi similitudinem refert ejus qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine prestet, si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes eum talem esse sacerdotem qui Dei nomine aliquid nobis prestet. ‘When Christ is considered as a priest, although he bears the likeness of one that doth something with God on the behalf of men, yet if you look more narrowly into the matter itself, you will find that he 15. such a priest, who acts towards us inthe name of God’ If we may but hold him to this plain declaration of his mind, (which indeed he must keep to, or lose his cause,) the vanity and tergiversation that is in all his other evasionsand pretences, will be evident.

§ 15. But, because we have resolved on a particular examination of all that can be pretended in this matter, on behalf of our adversaries, we may consider his plea at large, in his own words. 1. Grotius ita verba ea pro-

culdubio intelligit, ac si dictum esset sacrificiis moveri Deum, ut hominibus benefaciat, et expiatoriis quideni, ut remissionem peccatorum 115 concedere velit. 2, Hocsiin eam sententiam accipiatur, in quam alias Grotius hujusmodi verba in nostro negotio sumere solet, ut significet 3. Deum iratum ac poenas expetentem, ita tamen ut non ayersetur omnes ire deponende rationes, sacrificiis placari, et ad ignoscendum flecti, 4. non est id de omnibus sacrificiis expiatoriis, etiam proprie dictis admittendum, imo de iis que proprie ita appellantur 5. minus quam de aliis ab | homine profectis, precibus scilicet, poenitentia, animi humilitate, seu cordis ac spiritus contritione. 6. Neque enim sub lege eo pacto Deum movebant sacrificia ab ipso preescripta preesertim semper. Sed cum Deus enim antea decrevisset, se intervenientibus illis sacrificiis delicta et lapsus velle condonare, iis oblatis, 7. vi decreti istius effectus 116 apud Deum consequebatur, etiam si is actu non irasceretur, imo ideo potius offerebantur sacrificia, ne, si forte negligerentur, irasceretur, quam ut jam iratus placaretur. Quod si vocem movendi, et ceteras ei similes, eo modo hic accipias, quem nos alibi etiam explicuimus, ut significent conditione prestita apud Deum efficere, ut vi decreti sui effectum hominibus benefaciat, et reatum

peccati deleat poenamque avertat, sive per se ut sub lege, sive per alum ut N. Federis tempore, id quod Grotius ait, tum de sacrificiis legalibus, tum etiam de morte Christi, 8. Quam sacrificium, et quidem expiatorium esse fatemur, licet per se in hoc genere nondum perfectum, verum est.

Answ. 1. There was no need at all of this large and ambiguous repetition of the whole state of the controversy about the nature and use of sacrifices in this place, where the argument concerned only the proper object of Christ's sacerdotal actings. And he knew well enough the mind of Grotius as to the sense of what he asserted; only it was necessary to retreat into this long diversion, to avoid the force of the testimonies produced against him. 2. The sense which we plead for, as to the expiation of our sins by Jesus Christ is plain and evident. God was the Author and Giver of the law, and the sanction thereof; the supreme, righteous, holy Rector, Governor, and Judge of all persons and actions relating thereunto, the Dispenser of rewards and punishments, according to the sense and sentence of it. Man transgressed this law by sin, and did what lay in him thereby to cast off the government of God. This rendered him obnoxious to the sentence, curse, death, and punishment threatened in the sanction of the law, which God, as the righteous, holy, supreme Governor of all, was, on the account of his righteousness, authority, and veracity, obliged to execute. This respect of God towards the transgressors of his law, the Scripture represents, under the notion and expression of his anger against sin and sinners, which is nothing but the engagement of his justice to punish offenders. On this account God would not, and without the violation of his justice and veracity, could not forgive sin, or dismiss sinners unpunished, without an atonement made by an expiatory sacrifice, wherein his justice also was to be satisfied, and his law to be fulfilled. And this was done by the sacrifice of Christ, according to the tenor and compact between God and him before described. 3. The advantage that Crellius seeks from the words of Grotius, in the entrance of his discourse, of God's being ‘ angry with sinners, yet not so as to depose all thoughts of reconciliation, will stand him in no stead; for he intended ne more by them, but that, although God was _ provoked as the righteous Governor of his creatures, yet he determined not absolutely to destroy them, when he had found a ransom; that is, provided his justice were satisfied, his honour repaired, his law fulfilled, all which, his own holiness and faithfulness required, he would pardon sin, and take away the punishment from sinners. That whereby this was done, was the sacrifice of Christ, whose object, therefore, must be God himself; and consequently, he*is the object of all his sacerdotal actings. 4. All expiatory sacrifices did in their way and kind, procure the remission of sins by the way of atonement, and not otherwise. Nor can Crellius give any one instance to the contrary; their first and principal design was to atone and pacify anger, or to turn away wrath and punishment, as due from the displeasure of God, and therefore, their first effect was towards God himself. 5. The means on our part for the obtaining of the actual remission of sin, and sense thereof in our consciences, as prayer, repentance, humiliation, contrition of heart and spirit, are not means of making atonement, wherein there is always the nature of compensation and satisfaction. If we apply ourselves unto God by them to any such purpose, or rest upon them to that end, we render them useless, yea, an abomination. Yea, they are all enjoined to us on supposition of atonement made for sin, in and by the blood of Christ, and so they were from the foundation of the world. From the giving of the first promise, wherein the Lord Christ was a Lamb slain, as to | the efficacy of his future oblation, God forgave sins for his sake, and not otherwise. And the duties enjoined us, in order unto actual remission, or a sense of it in our consciences, are all to be founded in the faith of that atonement, which is supposed, and is to be pleaded in them all. For in Christ ‘alone it is that we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. But all this is a diversion from the present argument and inquiry, which concerns only the proper object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, and not the nature of his sacrifice, which shall be spoken to elsewhere. And these very duties whereby we make application for actual remission or pardon upon the atonement made, have God for their object also, and so must every thing which hath an influence of any kind for the pardon of sin. 6. The account he gives concerning the interest of expiatory sacrifices in procuring the pardon of sin, is false and sophistical. That God, not being angry with sin, should decree, that upon the offering of sacrifices. he would pardon it, and would have such sacrifices offered, not because he was angry, but that he might not be so, is a vain imagination. Tor all sacrifices were offered for sins that were past, and all applications we can make to God by the sacrifice of Christ for the pardon of sin, respects it as past. And, therefore wexe sacrifices instituted, to make atonement, that is, to avert and turn away wrath already deserved and due to the offender. To say this was done, not because God was angry at sin, but that he might not be so when it was already committed, is inconsistent with truth and reason. Hor God is angry with sin because it is committed; and if he be not so, he is never angry with it. That which we intend hereby is, that he forbids every sin, and hath annexed a threatening of punishment unto that prohibition: this is his anger. 7. That expression, ‘ vi decreti, that God pardons sin by virtue of his decree, contains sundry secrets of these men’s doctrine. For it is intimated that all which belongs to the expiation of sin by sacrifices, was a mere free constitution, nothing in them, nothing which they had any respect to, or in the atonement made by them, was any way necessary on the account of the righteousness or holiness of God. For this decree of God is nothing but a voluntary constitution of this order of things, that sacrifices should go before remission, and not contribute any thing thereto. There is, therefore, nothing in that discourse, ‘ Conditione prestita apud Deum efficere, ut vi decreti sui, &c., but that sacrifices by God’s appointment were an act of worship antecedent to the remission of sins. It is true, there is nothing done in thé whole matter of the expiation of sin, but it depends on God’s decree and appointment. But the things disposed of by virtue of that decree, have this relation one to another, that the sacrifice of Christ shall be, and is, the procuring cause of the pardon of sin. God may, therefore, be said to pardon sin, ‘in decreto suo, as the original disposing cause; but he doth it not without respect to the sacrifice of Christ, as the meritorious procuring cause. It is not, therefore, merely an antecedent condition, making way for the accomplishment of a voluntary decree, but it isa moral cause appointed of God, in his decree for the effecting of pardon. 8. I wonder with what confidence he here affirms, that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice, when he knew himself that he did not believe it so to be. That Christ offered but one sacrifice, both they and we agree. That this was not in his death, that it was in heaven when he presented himself unto God, that indeed it consists in the power which he hath, as glorified and exalted, to free us from the punishment due unto sin, is the sum of what he pleads for in this part of his book. Both here and elsewhere he endeavours to prove, that Christ was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, that his death was only a pre-requisite condition (and so was his life also) unto the offering of himself. But from all these open contradictions, he shelters himself by saying, that it was not as yet perfect in this kind. But why doth he say that it was not a perfect sacrifice, while he believes that it was none at all. Or if it be not a perfect sacrifice, was if a part of the perfect sacrifice that was afterwards completed in heaven? If it were so, then was Christ a priest whilst he was on the earth, then did he offer himself unto God in his death, then was God the object of that sacerdotal act, as we contend and plead: if these things belong not unto it, then it was neither a perfect sacrifice nor imperfect, neither complete nor incomplete, neither part of a sacrifice, nor the whole, which we shall find him granting in his next words.

§ 5. ‘Sed si loquaris de (1)Sacrificio seu oblatione Christi expiatoria perfecta, quam in ceelis peragit, quamque 1). Auctor ad Heb. explicat, et Grotius qui eam ostentionis appellat et agnoscit; de ea aliquid amplius dici debet. (2) Neque enim ea ad remissionem peccatorum intervenit tanquam nuda quedam conditio, aut res ad alterum tantum, qui remissionem reipsa preestet, aliqua ratione impellendum comparata; sed potissimum tanquam vera causa efficiens quee vi sua remissionem peccatorum nobis a Deo decretam preestat; et efficacia sua eorum vim quam ad nos damnandos et divinis suppliciis obnoxios reddendos habent, extinguit ac delet.’

Answ. As the former discourse was a mere diversion from the present question and argument, so this is partly a begging of the’ question in general, and partly a concession of what he labours to avoid the inconvenience of. For, 1. It is a plain begging of the main question to say and suppose, that the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ consisted only in what he performed in heaven, the contrary whereunto we have sufficiently proved before, and which they shall never evince, whilst the Scripture is owned to be the word of God. 2. The latter part of his discourse plainly grants what he would seem to deny, but proves it not. He denies that the sacrifice of Christ respects God so much, as a condition pre-required unto the forgiveness of sin. But he will have it to be the efficient cause of pardon; that is, the Lord Christ being entrusted with power from God, to that end and purpose after his ascension into heaven, doth take away our sin, or free and deliver us from the punishment due to it. Now, though this be true, yet this is not the oblation or sacrifice of himself, nor can any man reconcile the notions of a sacrifice with this actual efficiency in delivering us from the punishment of sin, so as that they should be the same. Hereof it is granted that we, and not God, are the first and immediate object; but that the oblation or sacrifice of Christ consists herein, is wholly denied: nor doth he here attempt to prove it so to do. 3. What account on this supposition can be given of the intercession of Christ, which is his second great sacerdotal duty? Doth this also consist in a powerful efficiency in us, of what God hath decreed concerning his pardoning, blotting out, and extinguishing of sin? Is this the nature of it, that whereas God had decreed freely to pardon sin, and to take away the punishment due to it, this intercession is his powerful taking away of that punishment, and his actual deliverance of us from sin? Is it possible, that an act and duty of this nature should be expressed by a word of a more opposite signification and importance? For my part I value not that use of right reason that these men so much boast of, which is exercised in giving a wrong signification to words, expressive of so weighty truths and duties? Who but they can possibly understand any thing by Christ's intercession in heaven at the right hand of God, but his procuring from him grace, mercy, and pardon for us, by virtue of his antecedent oblation? And God is the object of his actings herein.

δ 17. But he proceeds to give countenance to what he hath assserted.

(1) ‘Itaque quemadmodum oblationis vox, ut infra clarius patebit, ad hance Christi actionem (2) ob similitudinem cum legalibus sacrificiis transfertur; ita et loquutio heec (3) quod peragatur, vel fiat, apud Deum pro hominibus. (4) Similitudo in eo est (5) quod quemadmodum legalia sacrificia ideo Deo ofterebantur (6) et coram ipsius vultu perficiebantur, ut iis peractis (7) vi decreti ipsius homines, pro quibus offerebantur, remissionem peccatorum ab ipso obtinerent; ita (8) interveniente Christi oblatione, seu apparitione coram Dei vultu (9) per sanguinis fusionem facta, et cum summo salutis nostre perficiendze desiderio conjuncta, (10) homines a Deo vi decreti ipsius, ipsiusque virtute, quam eum in finem Christo concessit, liberationem a peenis obtinent. (11) Indicare nempe hac loquutione Spiritus Sanctus voluit remissionem peccatorum quam Christus in ccelis apud Patrem degens nobis preestet, a Deo ejusque benignitate primo proficisci, et quicquid ad eam in nobis perficiendam sit, id totum ipsius virtute et auctoritate Christo, qui ut eam adipjsceretur, et sic nos a peccatorum pcenis reipsa liberare posset, sanguinem suum fuderat, eoque cum desiderio ccelum fuerat ingressus, data peragi. (12) Itaque ut id exprimat, non modo Christi in ceelos ingressum atque ad Deum accessum, per quem factum est ut ad dextram ipsius consideret, et plenam peccata nobis remittendi potestatem obtineret, sed et perpetuam apud ipsum permansionem, cum salutis nostre | cura conjunctam ita considerat, ac si ab ea Deus aliqua ratione moveretur ad remissionem peccatorum nobis vi decreti sui concedendam. (13) Et sic inter hance et illam actus quidam ipsius Dei, propitium se nobis exhibentis, et nos a poena liberantis interveniret; cum tamen ipse Christus potestate _ sibi, a Deo, et olim decreta, et in coelum ingresso donata, id totum, quod ad nos a poena liberandos pertinet, ejus nomine faciat.’

Answ. 1. The name of oblation and sacrifice is not applied at all to that action of Christ which this man intends, namely, his appearance in heaven, which, as to its efficacy on our behalf, belongs to his intercession, Rom. viii. 34; 1 John iu. 2. There is more also in the sacrifice of Christ, than the transferring the name of oblation to any action of his, which is not so indeed. These little artifices and insinuations, which, when discovered, are a mere begging of the thing in question, make up the principal parts of Crellius’ defence. Wherefore, 2. The name of oblation is not transferred to that action of Christ, wherein his sacrifice did truly and really consist, namely, his death and blood-shedding, merely by an allusion taken from the Jegal sacrifices; butit is so called by the Holy Ghost because it is so indeed, as haying the true proper nature of a sacrifice, so as that it was the pattern or idea in the mind of God of all other sacrifiees which he appointed, and which therefore were ordained to no other end, but to prefigure the nature, and exhibit the efficacy thereof. 3. That expression of doing things ‘ apud Deum,’ or doing for men the things that appertain unto God, cannot on the hypothesis of these men be ascribed to Christ out of a similitude to what was done by the priests of old. For whatever they did as priests, they did it unto God; but the Lord Christ, according to these men, did nothing asa priest unto God. And how can that which he doth towards us be called by the name of what the priests did of old towards God, because of its likeness hereto, seeing there is no likeness between these things? For what similitude is there between offering of a bloody sacrifice to God, thereby to make atonement for the guilt of sin, and the actual powerful deliverance of us from the punishment due to sin? What such similitude, I say, is there between these things, as to warrant their being called by the same name, which answers to one of them properly, and to the other not at all? That therefore which is here pretended, amounts to no more than this; namely, that whereas he doth nothing in his offering with God, but with men, he is said to offer himself, by reason of a similitude in what he did, to what the priests did in their oblations, who did nothing with men therein, but with God. As therefore we know that the sacerdotal acting of Christ was not called an oblation, offering, or sacrifice, merely out of the similitude that was between it and the sacrifices of old, although we grant that indeed there was more than a mere similitude between them, even a typical relation, the one being designed to represent the nature and exhibit the virtue of the other, whence they are both properly called by the same name; yet according to the opinion of our adversaries, we deny that there is any such likeness or similitude between what Christ doth in taking away of sin, and what was done hy the priests of old, as that any denomination could or ought thence to be taken, or any name assigned to it. As for the death of Christ, Crellius peremptorily denies it to have been Christ’s perfect expiatory sacrifice. And for his offering himself in heaven, he affirms that whatever other appearance may be of it, yet indeed it is wholly conversant about us, and not about God. It is therefore in vain to inqure after reasons and grounds on which Christ may be said to do those things in his sacrifice ‘ que sunt apud Deum peragenda, when it cannot be truly spoken at all, and 15 directly denied by them. 4. Let it therefore be observed, that the similitude that was between the sacrifices of the law and that of Christ, was not a bare natural or moral similitude, whence the one of them might be called by the name of the other, that name belonging to the one properly, to the other metaphorically; but whereas there is a generical identity between them, both of them agreeing in the same general nature of being proper sacrifiees in their own special kind; the one of them, namely, those of the priests under the law, were instituted and ordained to represent the other, or the sacrifice of Christ, whence arose a similitude between them, as there was a real difference on many other accounts. And the relation that was between them, which these men would have to be a similitude, onlyarose from these three respects. 1. That the sacrifice of Christ was that pattern in heavenly things, according to the idea whereof, all legal sacrifices were appointed to make a representation. ‘That is, God having designed his Son Jesus Christ to be the high priest of his church, and to expiate their sins by the sacrifice of himself, did appoint the legal priesthood and sacrifices, obscurely to delineate that design before its actual accomplishment. And indeed here lies the true difference between us and the Sociniansin this matter. For they suppose that God having for certain ends instituted the offlce of priests and duty of sacrificing in the church of old, some things that were done afterwards, and, are yet done by Christ, because of their allusion to, and some kind of likeness with, what was done in and by those institutions, are called by their names. We judge on the other hand, that God originally designing the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that he might represent his purpose therein to be accomplished in the fulness of time, and grant an outward means or pledge to the church of an interest in the nature, efficacy, and benefit thereof, and for no other end, appointed the typical priesthood and sacrifice of the Old Testament, as hath been proved at large before. Wherefore, 2. Seeing they were types appointed of God to set out, teach, and prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, whatever was _ in them that did not arise from the natural and indispensable imperfections of them by whom they were offered, and the nature of the offerings themselves, but was directly of divine institution, was in the mind and will of God instructive beforehand of the nature and use of the sacrifice of Christ. If therefore those priests offered sacrifices to God, so did Christ; if they made atonement by blood, so did Christ; if those sacrifices consisted in the slaying and oblation on the altar of the victim, so did Christ in his death and biood-shedding; if God were the principal immediate object of their sacerdotal actings, so he was of Christ’s. 3. They were by God's ordinance figuratively communicative of the real virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, God appointed them to this end, that the church making use of them in the faith of the promise concerning the future sacrifice of Christ, should through them be made partakers of the benefits thereof, they being means of exhibiting spiritually what they did carnally represent. Crellius thinks, that all sacrifices were only conditions required antecedently to the free pardon of sin, which he calls the pardoning of sin by virtue of God's decree; but that they had no influence to the procuring of the remission of sin; which is in effect, that they did no way make atonement for sin. But then no man living can give an account of their special nature, or why God did institute a condition of that kind, when any duties or acts of obedience of any other sort, would kave served to the same end. It is plain, that all expiatory sacrifices did at least make a representation of commutation, satisfaction, pacification of wrath, turning away of evil, the procurement of mercy, reconciliation, and atonement; and if they did nothing of this nature, it is hard to find any reason of their institution. Wherefore the similitude invented by Crellius, is of no consideration in this matter, but is only found out on purpose to destroy the true analogy that is between the legal sacrifices and that of Christ. 5. There is indeed, according to the opinion of these men, no similitude between them; for the legal sacrifices did not consist in the representation of the beast sacrificed, much less in any exaltation and power that it had afterwards; but in the slaying and offering of it on the altar, to which there is not the least resemblance in that which they call the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ. 6. The offering of sacrifices ‘coram Dei vultu, before the face of God, is true, but not in his sense; for he confines it to the presence of God in the sanctuary only: whereas that which was done at the altar, was also said to be done before God, and nowhere else were any sacrifices offered. 7. The use of legal sacrifices here granted byhim is indeednone at all; for the decree of God,that is the free pleasure of God is made the only cause of the remission of sin, without respect to any procuring cause or means whatever. And if propitiatory or expiatory sacrifices had no influence into the remission of sin, if they made not atonement for it, they were of no use at all. Nor is there any thing found in the application of these things to Christ and his sacrifice. For, 8. The oblation or sacrifice of Christ was not the same with, nor did consist in his appearance in the presence of God in heaven, but was antecedent thereto. He offered himself, and afterwards appears in the presence of God for us, as is plainly expressed. 9. This oblation of Christ is said to be per sanguinis fusionem, ‘ by the shedding of his blood; but how or in what sense? The words are used to keep unto some seeming compliance with the Scripture, wherein our redemption, forgiveness, freedom from wrath, all the effects of the sacrifice of Christ, are frequently and signally ascribed to his bloodshed. But is there any intention to intimate, that effusion of blood had any interest or concern in his oblation? We know it had not, according to these men, but only as an antecedent condition to his exaltation, as.was his whole life and humiliation.” 10. The manner of the expiation of sin by the sacrifice of Christ, here at large described by Crellius, is absurd, dissonant from reason, and contradictory to the Scripture in itself; and the manner of its declaration, sophistical. The words are to this purpose: ‘That Christ as a priest offered himself unto God through the effusion of his blood, to obtain for us mercy, pardon of sin, and deliverance from punishment; but the meaning or sense intended is, that being exalted in heaven after his death, by the power that he had received from God, he pardons our sins, and delivereth us from the.punishment due unto them. But this is such a way of teaching things, as becometh neither the holy penmen of the Scripture, nor any man of common sobriety. And to increase the fondness of the story, Christ is said to do these things with God, or towards God, when men are the express object of what he doth; and this in his ensuing discourse he directly asserts and contends for. 1. This is that, it seems, which the Holy Ghost would intimate by these expressions of Christ's being a priest, of his offering himself to God an expiatory sacrifice, of cur redemption thereon by his blood in the forgiveness of our sins; namely, ‘That whatever Christ doth in heaven towards the pardon of sin, or the pardon of sin which he affords us, proceedeth in the first place from the kindness and benignity of God, because he hath given power unto him for that end and purpose. But if no more be indeed intended in this expression, if the sacrifice of Christ did in no sense procure our redemption or pardon of sin, or deliverance from the punishment due unto it, no man can tell for what end the Holy Ghost should.

use these expressions. Why he should largely and particularly insist upon them and their explanation for our instruction, seeing the only thing intended by them, namely, that the pardon of our sins proceeds originally from divine benignity and grace, and that the Lord Christ, as Mediator, hath received all his power from God the Father, is taught and expressed a thousand times more plainly and clearly in other places and words, and whereas these things and expressions signify no such things as those intended, no man living can divine. Let him that can, assign a tolerable reason why the exercise of the power of Christ in heaven, because it is given him of God, should be called his offering, sacrifice, or oblation of himself, as the high priest of the church. All men freely acknowledge, that whatever power Christ hath as Mediator to forgive us our sins actually, to free us from the punishment deserved by them, he received it of God, who gave all things into his hand, because he laid down his life for his sheep; but that his priesthood consists in the exercise of this power, and that the exercise thereof with love and care is his oblation and sacrifice of himself, being indeed only a consequent thereof, and the means of the administration of its virtue and efficacy, is a fond imagination. 12. In the mention of those things whereby God should at least seem to be moved to grant to us the pardon and remission of sin, Crellius utterly omits the death of Christ, reckoning up only his entrance into heaven, his great desire of our salvation, his access unto God, and sitting at his right hand; wherein he seems not much to aim at a compliance with the Scripture, which every-where ascribes all these effects directly and immediately to the death and bloodshedding of Christ. 13. The sum of what remains of his discourse amounts to this, ‘ That although in what Christ did for us, there is an appearance, as though God upon the consideration of what was done by him, was moved to pardon sin, and free us from punishment, (which yet exclusively unto his death is not trne,) yet indeed there is no such thing intended, but only this is so, that Christ doth all this by virtue of the power he received from God, and in his name.’ The sum of the whole is, that there is an appearance of Christ’s being a high priest, an appearance of his offering himself a sacrifice to God for us, an appearance of his acting with God on our behalf, an appearance of his procuring redemption and pardon of sins for us; but in truth and really there is nothing intended, but that he hath received power from God after his humiliation to pardon our sins, and deliver us from punishment, which he exerciseth with love and tenderness. But yet all this while, he hath not directly denied, that Christ, in his offering himself as a priest, had first respect unto God, which was the only thing in question, and that because he had not long before granted that the Scripture in express terms affirms it: but he would make a show of reason, why, though the thing be not so indeed, yet it is mentioned as though it were; which is first to assign a falsehood to the holy writers, and then to excuse it. His ensuing discourse in this place, wherein he designs to prove that God is said to do something for Christ, which yet he doth himself (as the subduing of his enemies and the like,) by virtue of the power he hath received of God, is so exceedingly impertinent to the present occasion, as being designed only for a diversion from the cause in hand, as that I shall pass it by, and come to that part of his disputation, wherein he begins to speak his mind with more openness and freedom than before. |

§ 18. Pag. 477. (1.) ‘Interdum tamen 1). ille Scriptor ad Heb. de Christ, sacerdotio et oblatione agens, et rem nudam ante oculos nobis ponere volens, neglecta aliquantum allusionis et comparationis cum ritibus legalibus concinnitate, talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat, que circa nos primo versetur, non vero circa Deum.’

Answ. 1. This is plain dealing, and to the purpose. To what end have we heen led about by all the long discourse which we have examined? Grotius affirmed and proved, that the actings of Christ as a priest did in the first place respect God and not us. This Crellius durst not grant, lest he should prejudice his cause; nor at first deny, until he had endeavoured to cast a mist before the eyes of the reader. But now supposing him sufficiently entangled or engaged, he expressly denies what Grotius affirmed. Be it so then that we, and not God, are the immediate objects of Christ’s sacerdotal actings, then did he offer himself to us and not unto God; and maketh intercession with us and not with God. For these are the only general sacerdotal actings of Christ, and if God be not the object of them, he did neither offer himself to God, nor mtercede with him. But, 2. He supposeth that all which seems to be asserted to that purpose, proceeds from the neat fitting of these things, by way of allusion to the legal sacrifices, which when the apostle neglecteth, he declares his intention to be quite otherwise. Let us consider the testimonies he produceth in the confirmation of this bold assertion.

‘ Docet id, ut supra vidimus, locus ipsius sub finem, cap. 2. atque imprimis ver. ult. ubi modum explicat, quo Christus tanquam pontifex in iis que apud Deum, peccata populi expiet. Modus vero iste est; in quo enim ipse passus est cum tentaretur potest 115 qui tentantur auxiliari. Potest, inquit, ἢ, 6. ad id faciendum pronus est, aut id facere libenter solet. Idem docent verba, cap. 4. itidem sub finem quz eandem cum illis sententiam continent.’

tac ἁμαρτιας του daov, * A faithful high priest in things pertaining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, doth respect both the office and whole work of the priests of old, in making atonement for sin by expiatory sacrifices. And inch. iy. 14, the entrance of Christ into heaven is asserted, in opposition to the entrance of the legal high priest into the carnal sanctuary. 2. The help which the Lord Christ gives to us, expressed ch. ii. 18, is founded in, and proceedeth from, the reconciliation or atonement which he is affirmed to have made in the first place, ver. 17. 3. The question under consideration is, whether the oblation of Christ doth in the first place respect God or us; and to prove that it respects us and not God, he cites this testimony of ver. 18, wherein there is no mention of his oblation at all, and omits the preceding words, where his oblation 15 so described by its effects, as to prove unavoidably that it respected God in the first place. 4. The succour which Christ affords unto them that are tempted, is no act of his priestly office; but it is the act of him who is our priest, and who was, as enabled thereunto by virtue of the reconciliation he had made by his oblation as a priest, so in the discharge of that office he underwent and suffered those things, whereby he is disposed and inclined to put forth his power in our behalf. 5. In ch. iv. 15, 16, the apostle treats not of the oblation of Christ, but of his personal qualification fitting him for his office; and that which he hath a principal eye to, is his intercession, and the fruits of it; and we shall conclude that this is with God, at least until our adversaries can affix some other tolerable sense unto that expression, or make intelligible their new kind of intercession with God for us, by acting his own power and love towards us.

But he yet undertakes to prove, that what is here mentioned is the whole of what Christ doth as a priest for us, his discourse whereof, because it compriseth the substance of all that he hath to plead in this cause, I shall at large transcribe and examine.

§ 19. ‘ Ad ea vero illustranda et confirmanda adhibentur ea a 1). Auctore que subjiciuntur initio cap. v. ut indicat particula enim, qu initium istud cap. v. cum fine capitis preecedentis connectit. Quare ex illis constare potest quid D. Auctor sibi velit verbis, quatenus ea ad Christum accommodari debent, que Grotius hic urget, eaque de causa totum locum adscribemus. Est autem hujusmodi: Non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris; sed tentatum per omnia secundum similitudinem absque peccato. Accedamus ergo cum fiducia ad thronum gratiz ut acciplamus misericordiam et gratiam ad opportunum auxilium, Omnis enim Pontifex ex hominibus acceptus pro hominibus constituitur in lis que ad (vel apud) Deum, ut offerat dona et victimas pro peccatis; qui possit moderate condolere ignorantibus et errantibus siquidem etiam ipse circundatus est infirmitate, &c. - Ubi vides illis cap. v. verbis, quod pontifex constituatur in iis que ad Deum, ut offerat dona et victimas pro peccatis, nihil in preecedentibus respondere preeter illa quod a Christo accepturi simus musericordiam et gratiam ad opportunum auxilium; quod sit cum nobis tentatis, ac vehementer trepidantibus succurrat et ne malorum pondere pressi tentationi succumbamus, ac peccatorum nostrorum poenam luamus, efficit; aut tune cum impii suorum scelerum dant pcenas ipse nos tuetur, et ne cum illis una pernicie involvamur, potestate sua divina intercedit. Quod idem ut vidimus, cap. 11. indicatur in verbis illis ubi expiationis quam Christus apud Deum peragit modus explicatur. At hujusmodi actio circa nos primo versatur non vero circa Deum nisi improprie loquamut.’

Answ. 1. I have at large transcribed this whole passage, that we may see what is the only foundation which he builds upon, or argument he hath to prove, that the sacerdotal acts of Christ respect us in the first place, and not God. The whole of what he pleads issues from this single supposition, that the apostle in the beginning of the fifth chapter intends nothing but the confirmation of what he had delivered in the end of the fourth; and therefore that the offering of gifts and sacrifices for sin unto God, is only his giving help and succour unto us in our temptations, which is the most uncouth expression and explication of one thing by another, that ever was in the world. Now this supposition is apparently false; and the connexion of the discourse which he feigneth at pleasure, every way insufficient to force us unto such a fond and brainless exposition of the words. That which alone he pleads in justification of his assertion, is the introduction of this new discourse, by the causal particle yap, ‘for, as though it intimated, that the apostle designed no more but to give a reason of what he had before laid down, concerning the help and succour, which we have in all our temptations and sufferings from our high priest. This indeed he doth also in the description he gives us of the nature and duties of this office, wherein he doth not merely explain what he had before delivered, but adds other considerations also of the nature and acts of that office, confirming our faith and expectation thefein; but his principal regard is to the whole subject-matter treated of, as being now to give his reasons, why he doth so industriously instruct them in the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ. And this use of the same particle in his transitions from one thing to another, wherein it respects not so much what immediately went before in particular, as the relation of what ensues to his whole design, and is also sometimes redundant, we have manifested by sundry instances in our exposition. Wherefore the apostle having occasionally digressed from the priesthood of Christ, which he had proposed unto consideration in the end of the second chapter, through the third and unto the 14th verse of the fourth, he there returns again to his first design. And this he doth by declaring in general the glory of Christ as a priest, his eminency above those of the order of Aaron, and the spiritual advantage which we receive, not from his being a priest, but from his being such a person, so qualified in the discharge of his office, as he is there by him described. Having expressed this in the last verses of the 4th chapter, and thereby stirred up the Hebrews to a diligent attention to what he had to instruct them in with respect hereunto, in the beginning of the fifth, he lays the foundation of all his subsequent discourses about the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. This he does by a general description of that office, and of its duties, with what belongs essentially thereto in all that are partakers thereof; adding some particular instances of the imperfections that attended it in the priests under the law, making application of the former to Jesus Christ, and discarding the consideration of the latter. As, therefore, in the end of the fourth chapter, he prepares the way to his intended declaration of the nature and duties of the sacerdotal office of Christ, by declaring in general the advantage we have, from the susception of that office by him who was the Son of God incarnate; so here, in the beginning of the fifth, he adds a description of the power, acts, and duties of that office, whence our benefits by 1t do originally arise. There is therefore no such coherence between these passages, as should warrant us to look on Christ’s helping and assisting of them that are tempted, to be the same, with his offering gifts and sacrifices to God. Yea, suppose that the apostle in these words doth only give the reason of what he had before asserted, which is all that is pleaded by Crellius to impose this nonsensical sense upon us, yet thereby also his pretension would be everted. For the reason of any thing differs from the thing if- VOL, 1, PP self. And if he proves only that we may have help and succour from Christ as our high priest, on this ground, that every priest doth offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, it doth not follow, that his helping of us, and his offering of sacrifice, are the same, yea it follows that they are distinct and different, the latter being given in as one reason and cause of the former. 2. What is here farther discoursed, concerning our deliverance by the power and care of Christ from sin and destruction, even then when wicked and impenitent persons shall be utterly destroyed, is true; but yet it is not his offering of sacrifice unto God for sin, but it is a consequent thereof. The consideration of it is indeed a matter of great consolation and encouragement to believers, but it is not to be asserted to the exclusion of that, which is the fountain of all the benefits which we receive by his mediation, And now it may be considered whether any thing be here offered by this author, either to prove that we are the first object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or in answer unto the testimonies alleged that God alone is so. But he hath yet somewhat more to add, and therefore proceeds.

‘ Animadvertendum autem est in loco utroque, sed apertius in posteriori ob (1) allusionem ad sacerdotium legale et similitudinem quandam que Christo cum pontificibus Aaronicis intercedat, (2) ad Christum etiam accommodari infirmitatem, quee in pontificibus istis exstitit, quaque 11 impelli debuerint ad aliorum infirmitates tanto promptius expiandas; cum tamen in Christo quippiam alterius generis infirmitatibus illis, quee nihil aliud erant quam lapsus et ignorantiz seu delicta ex infirmitate profecta, opponatur, nempe tentationes seu afflictiones ipsius, quarum memor, nobis tentatis atque afflictis succurrere tanto promptius soleat.’

Answ. 1. This man seems to aim at nothing, but how he may evade the force of truth, and thereon lays hold of every appearing advantage, though indeed contradicting himself therein. For in the entrance of his production of these testimonies, he tells us, ‘that they are such places as wherein the apostle, neglecting the allusion unto the priesthood of old, doth plainly and openly declare the nature of that of Christ.’ But here, in pressing of those testimonies, he pleads the ‘express mention of that allusion as the principal reason of his exposition. 2. It is not true, that those infirmities of the priests of old, which consisted in their sins and ignorances, are any way accommodated unto Christ. The things here spoken of the nature of the priests’ office and the discharge of it by them with whom it was intrusted, are distributed unto the subjects intended according to their capacity. In the priests of old there were such infirmities, as they had need to offer for their own sins also; in Christ there was no such thing, nor any thing that answered thereunto. But in all priests there were infirmities, such as inseparably attend our human nature in this mortal life, and these our high priest Christ Jesus was subject to, whence he was liable to be tempted and suffer. These the apostle doth not accommodate to Christ, but really ascribes unto him, see ver. 7,8, with our exposition. 3. This one concession of Crellius, that Christ our high priest, that is, as our high priest, was subject to temptations and sufferings, which he must be, or there is no similitude between him and the high priests of old in this matter of infirmities, utterly overtlirows his whole cause; for he was no way subject unto them, but as, and whilst he was in this world. His glorified nature in heaven is liable neither to temptations nor sufferings. If, therefore, any of these infirmities were found in him as our high priest, which the apostle expressly affirms, and Crellius acknowledgeth, he was our high priest whilst he was on the earth. But he adds,