Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction, Discourse · Chapter 5

Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction · Discourse · Chapter 5

p. 202CHAP. V.

I. The notion of a sacrifice belongs to the death of Christ, because of the Oblation made therein to God. Crellius his sense of Christ's Oblation proposed. II. Against him it is proved, that the Priestly office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us. Expiatory Sacrifices did divert the wrath of God. III. Christ not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest. IV. Crellius destroys the Priesthood of Christ by confounding it with the exercise of his Regal Power. V. No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven, if Crellius his Doctrine be true. VI. Ephes. 5.2. proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice, and an Oblation to God. The Phrase of a sweet-smelling savour, belongs to expiatory Sacrifices; Crellius his gross notion of it. VII. His mistakes about the kinds of Sacrifices. Burnt-offerings were Expiatory Sacrifices both before and under the Law. A new distribution of sacrifices proposed. VIII. What influence the mactation of the Sacrifice had on Expiation. The p. 203High Priest only to slay the Sin-offering on the day of Atonement; from whence it is proved that Christ's Priesthood did not begin from his entrance into Heaven. The mactation in Expiatory Sacrifices no bare preparation to a Sacrifice, proved by the Iewish Laws, and the customs of other Nations. IX. Whether Christ's Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven, or on Earth? Of the proper notion of Oblations under the Levitical Law. Several things observed from thence to our purpose. X. All things necessary to a legal Oblation, concurr in the death of Christ. XI. His entrance into Heaven hath no correspondency with it; if the blood of Christ were no Sacrifice for sin. In Sin-offerings for the People, the whole was consumed; no eating of the Sacrifices allowed the Priests, but in those for private Persons. XII. Christ's exercise of Power in Heaven, in no sense an Oblation to God. XIII. Crellius, his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places in dispute. XIV. Objections answered.

p. 204Of the Oblation made by Christ unto God.I. THE second thing to prove the death of Christ a Sacrifice for sin, is the Oblation of it to God for that end. Grotius towards the conclusion of his Book, makes a twofold oblation of Christ, parallel to that of the Sacrifices under the Law, the first of Mactation, the second of Representation; whereof the first was done in the Temple, the second in the Holy of Holies; so the first of Christ was on Earth, the second in Heaven; the first is not a bare preparation to a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice: the latter not so much a Sacrifice, as the commemoration of one already past. Wherefore, since appearing and interceeding are not properly sacerdotal acts, any further than they depend on the efficacy of a sacrifice already offered, he that takes away that Sacrifice, doth not leave to Christ any proper Priesthood, against the plain authority of the Scripture, which assigns to Christ the office of a Priest distinct from that of a Prophet and a King. To which Crellius replies: That the expiation of sin doth properly belong to what Christ doth in Heaven; Crell. c. 10. sect. 45.and may be applied p. 205to the death of Christ only, as the condition by which he was to enjoy that power in Heaven, Ib. sect. 55.whereby he doth expiate sins; but the Priest was never said to expiate sins when he killed the beast, but when the blood was sprinkled or carried into the Holy of Holies, to which the Oblation of Christ in Heaven does answer: but mactation, saith he,Ib. sect. 47. was not proper to the Priests, but did belong to the Levites also. And Christ was not truly a Priest, Ib. sect. 53.while he was on Earth, but only prepared by his sufferings to be one in Heaven, where by the perpetual care he takes of his People, and exercising his power for them, Ib. sect. 54. Sect. 56.he is said to offer up himself, and intercede for them, and by that means he dischargeth the Office of a High Priest for them. For his Priestly Office, he saith, is never in Scripture mentioned as distinct from his Kingly, but is comprehended under it; and the great difference between them is, that one is of a larger extension than the other is, the Kingly Office extending to punishing, and the Priestly only to expiation. This is the substance of what Crellius more at large discourseth upon this subject. Wherein he asserts these things. That the Priestly Office of Christ doth not in reference to the expiation of sins p. 206respect God but us; his Intercession and Oblation wherein he makes the sacerdotal function of Christ to consist, being the exercise of his power for the good of his People. 2. That Christ did offer up no Sacrifice of expiation to God upon Earth, because the mactation had no reference to expiation, any other than as a preparation for it; and Christ not yet being constituted a High Priest till after his Resurrection from the dead. Against these two assertions I shall direct my following discourse, by proving; 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us. 2. That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross.

That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not us. Crell. in Heb. 5.1.Heb 5:1II. 1. That the Priestly Office of Christ had a primary respect to God, and not to us; which appears from the first Institution of a High Priest, mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. 5.1. For every High Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Id est, saith Crellius elsewhere, ut procuret & peragat ea quae ad colendum ac propitiandum numen pertinent; i. e. That he may perform the things which appertain p. 207to the worshipping and propitiating God: We desire no more, but that the propitiating God, may as immediately be said to respect him, as the worshipping of God doth; or let Crellius tell us, what sense the propitiating God will bear; if all that the High-Priest had to do, did immediately respect the people: nay, he saith not long after, That it was the chief Office of a High-Priest, to plead the cause of sinners with God, and to take care, that they may find him kind and propitious, and not angry or displeased. In what sense God was said to be moved by the Expiatory Sacrifices, is not here our business to discuss; it is sufficient for our purpose, that they were instituted with a respect to God, so as to procure his favour, and divert his wrath. In which sense, the Priest is so often in the Levitical Law said, by the offering up of Sacrifices, to expiate the sins of the people. But Crellius saith,Crell. c. 1… ▪ sect. 3. This ought not so to be understood, as though God by Expiatory Sacrifices, were diverted from his anger, and inclined to pardon; which is a plain contradiction, not only to the words of the Law, but to the instances that are recorded therein; as when Aaron p. 208was bid in the time of the Plague to make an Atonement for the people, Numb. 16.46.Num 16:46for there is wrath gone out from the Lord: and he stood between the living and the dead, Vers 48.and the plague was stayed. Was not God's anger then diverted here, by the making this Atonement? The like instance we read in David's time, that by the offering burnt-offerings, &c. the Lord was intreated for the Land, 2 Sam. 24.25.2 Sam 24:25and the plague was stayed from Israel: By which nothing can be more plain, than that the primary intention of such Sacrifices, and consequently of the Office of the Priest who offered them, did immediately respect the Atoning God: But yet Crellius urgeth, This cannot be said of all, or of the most proper Expiatory Sacrifices; but we see it said of more than the meer Sacrifices for sin, as appointed by the Law; viz of burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, and incense, in the examples mentioned. So that these Levitical Sacrifices did all respect the atoning God; although in some particular cases, different Sacrifices were to be offered; for it is said, the burnt-offering was to make atonement for them, Lev. 1.4.4.20.5.7.Lev 1:4Lev 1:20Lev 1:5Lev 1:7as well as the sin and trespass-offerings (excepting those sacrifices which were instituted in acknowledgment of p. 209God's Sovereignty over them, and presence among them, as the daily Sacrifices, the meat and drink offerings, or such as were meerly occasional, &c.) Thus it is said,1 Chron. 6.49.1 Chr 6:49 that Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an Atonement for Israel: Grot. in Heb. 5.1.Heb 5:1So that as Grotius observes out of Philo, The High-Priest was a Mediator between God and man, by whom men might propitiate God, and God dispense his favours to men. But the means whereby he did procure favours to men, was by atoning God by the Sacrifices, which he was by his Office to offer to him. We are now to consider, how far this holds in reference to Christ, for whose sake the Apostle brings in these words; and surely would not have mentioned this as the primary Office of a High-Priest, in order to the proving Christ to be our High-Priest, after a more excellent manner than the Aaronical was, unless he had agreed with him in the nature of his Office, and exceeded him in the manner of performance.

III. For the Apostle both proves, that he was a true and proper,Christ no barely metaphorical High-Priest. and not a bare Metaphorical High-Priest, and that in such a capacity, he very far exceeded p. 210the Priests after the Order of Aaron. But how could that possibly be, if he …ailed in the primary Office of a High-Priest; viz. In offering up gifts and sacrifices to God? If his Office as High-Priest did primarily respect men, when the Office of the Aaronical Priest did respect God? To avoid this,… c. 10. sect 3. Crellius makes these words to be only an allusion to the Legal Priesthood, and some kind of similitude between Christ and the Aaronical Priests; but it is such a kind of allusion, that the Apostle designs to prove Christ to be …n High-Priest by it; and which is of the greatest force, he proves the necessity of Christ's having somewhat to offer from hence:Heb 8 2.Heb 8:2 For every High-Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity, that this man have somewhat also to offer. This is that which … looks at as the peculiar and distinguishing character of a High-Priest; for … for others, and having compassion upon them, might be done by others besides the High-Priest; but this was that, without which he could not make good his name, what order soever he were of. I… Christ then had no proper sa…rifice to offer up to God, to what purpose doth the Apostle so industriously p. 211set himself to prove, that he is our High-Priest? when he must needs fail in the main thing, according to his own assertion? How easie had it been for the Iews, to have answered all the Apostles Arguments concerning the Priesthood of Christ, if he had been such a Priest, and made no other Oblation than Crellius allows him? When the Apostle proves against the Iews, that there was no necessity, that they should still retain the Mosaical Dispensation, because now they had a more excellent High-Priest than the Aaronical were; and makes use of that character of a High-Priest, that he was one taken out from among men, in things pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins: Well, say the Iews, we accept of this character, but how do you prove concerning Christ, that he was such a one? Did he offer up a Sacrifice for sin to God upon earth, as our High-Priests do? No, saith Crellius, his sufferings were only a preparation for his Priesthood in Heaven: But did he then offer up such a Sacrifice to God in Heaven? Yes, saith Crellius, he made an Oblation there. But is that Oblation such a Sacrifice to God for sin, as our High-Priests offer? Yes, saith p. 212Crellius, it may be called so by way of allusion. Well then, say they, you grant that your Iesus is only a High-Priest by way of allusion, which was against your first design to prove; viz. That he was a true High-Priest, and more excellent than ours. But suppose it be by way of allusion, doth he make any Oblation to God in Heaven or not? No, saith Crellius, really and truly he doth not: for all his Office doth respect us, but the benefits we enjoy coming originally from the kindness of God, you may call it an Oblation to God if you please. But how is it possible then, say the Iews, you can ever convince us, that he is any High-Priest, or Priest at all, much less, that he should ever exceed the Aaronical High-Priests in their Office? for we are assured, that they do offer Sacrifices for sin, and that God is atoned by them: but if your High-Priest make no atonement for sin, he falls far short of ours, and therefore we will still hold to our Levitical Priesthood, and not forsake that for one barely Metaphorical, and having nothing really answering the name of a High-Priest. Thus the force of all the Apostles Arguments is plainly taken p. 213away, by what Crellius and his Brethren assert concerning the Priesthood of Christ. But Crellius thinks to make it good by saying,Crell. cap. 10. sect. 3. Id. sect. 56. p. 547. That things that are improper and figurative, may be far more excellent than the things that are proper, to which they are opposed; so that Christ's Priesthood may be far more excellent than the Aaronical, although his be only figurative, and the other proper. But the question is not, Whether Christ's Priesthood by any other adventitious considerations, as of greater Power and Authority than the Aaronical Priests had, may be said to be far more excellent than theirs was; but, Whether in the notion of Priesthood, it doth exceed theirs? Which it is impossible to make good, unless he had some proper Oblation to make unto God, which in it self did far exceed all the Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law.

IV. But what that oblation of Christ in Heaven was,Crellius destroys the Priesthoo… of Christ which had any correspondency with the Sacrifices under the Law, our Adversaries can never assign; nay, when they go about it, they speak of it in such a manner, as makes it very evident they could heartily have wished the Epistle to the Hebrews had said as little of the Priesthood of Christ, as they p. 214say, any other part of the New Testament doth.Smalc c. Smiglect. Crell. cap. …. p. 544. Thence Smalcius and Crellius insist so much upon the Priesthood of Christ, being distinctly mentioned by none but the Author to the Hebrews; which, say they, had surely been done, if Christ had been a proper Priest, or that Office in him distinct from his Kingly. Which sufficiently discovers what they would be at; viz. That the Testimony of the Author to the Hebrews, is but a single Testimony in this matter; and in truth, they do (as far as is consistent with not doing it in express words) wholly take away the Priesthood of Christ: For what is there which they say his Priesthood implies, which he might not have had, supposing he had never been called a Priest? His being in Heaven, doth not imply that he is a Priest, unless it be impossible for any but Priests ever to come there: His Power and Authority over the Church, doth not imply it; for that power is by themselves confessed to be a Regal power: his readiness to use that power, cannot imply it, which is the thing Smalcius insists on; for his being a King of the Church, doth necessarily imply his readiness to make use of his power for the good of his Church. p. 215His receiving his power from God, doth not imply that he was a Priest, although Crellius insist on that, unless all the Kings of the Earth are Priests by that means too, and Christ could not have had a subordinate power as King, as well as Priest. But his death is more implied, saith Crellius, in the name of a Priest than of a King; true, if his death be considered as a Sacrifice, but not otherwise: For what is there of a Priest in bare dying, do not others so too? But this represents greater tenderness and care in Christ, than the meer title of a King: What kind of King do they imagine Christ the mean while, if his being so, did not give the greatest encourag…ment to all his subjects? nay, it is plain, the name of a King must yield greater comfort to his people, because that implies his power to defend them, which the bare name of a Priest doth not. So that there could be no reason at all given, why the name of a High-Priest should be at all given to Christ, if no more were implied in it, than the exercise of his power with respect to us, without any proper oblation to God: For here is no proper Sacerdotal act at all attributed to him; so that upon their hypothesis, p. 216the name of High-Priest, is a meer insignificant title used by the Author to the Hebrews, without any foundation at all for it. By no means, saith Crellius, for his expiation of sin is implyed by it, which is not implied in the name of King: True, if the expiation of sin were done by him in the way of a Priest by an oblation to God, which they deny; but though they call it Expiation, they mean no more than the exercise of his divine power in the delivering his people. But what parallel was there to this in the expiation of sins by the Levitical Priesthood? that was certainly done by a Sacrifice offered to God by the Priest, Levit. 4.26. v. …4, 35.Lev 4:26who was thereby said to expiate the sins of the people: how comes it now to be taken quite in another sense, and yet still called by the same name?

No proper expiation of sin belongs to Christ in Heaven, if Crelleus his doctrine be true▪V. But this being the main thing insisted on by them, I shall prove from their own Principles, that no expiation of sin in their own sense can belong to Christ in Heaven, by vertue of his Oblation of himself there, and consequently that they must unavoidably overthrow the whole notion of the Priesthood of Christ. For this we are to consider, what their notion of the expiation p. 217of sins is, which is set down briefly by Crellius in the beginning of his discourse of Sacrifices, There is a twofold power, saith he, Crell. c. 10. sect. 2.of the sacrifice of Christ towards the expiation of sin, one taking away the guilt and the punishment of sin, and that partly by declaring, that God will do it, and giving us a right to it, partly by actual deliverance from punishment; the other is by begetting Faith in us, and so drawing us off from the practice of sin: Now the first and last Crellius and Socinus attribute to the death of Christ, as that was a confirmation of the Covenant God made for the remission of sin; and as it was an argument to perswade us to believe the truth of his Doctrine; and the other, viz. the actual deliverance from punishment, is by themselves attributed to the second coming of Christ; for then only, they say, the just shall be actually delivered from the punishment of sin, viz. eternal death; and what expiation is there now left to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven? Doth Christ in Heaven declare the pardon of sin any other way than it was declared by him upon Earth? What efficacy hath his Oblation in Heaven upon perswading p. 218men to believe? or is his second coming when he shall sit as Judge, the main part of his Priesthood; for then the expiation of sins in our Adversaries sense is most proper? And yet nothing can be more remote from the notion of Christ's Priesthood, than that is; so that expiation of sins according to them can have no respect at all to the Oblation of Christ in Heaven, or (which is all one in their sence) his continuance in Heaven to his second coming.Crell. c. 10. sect. 3. p. 476. Yes, saith Crellius, his continuance there, is a condition in order to the expiation by actual deliverance, and therefore it may be said, that God is as it were moved by it to expiate sins. The utmost then, that is attributed to Christ's being in Heaven, in order to the expiation of sins, is that he must continue there without doing any thing in order to it; for if he does, it must either respect God or us: but they deny (though contrary to the importance of the words, and the design of the places where they are used) that the terms of Christ's interceding for us, or being an Advocate with the Father for us, Heb. 7.25. Rom. 8.3. 1 Joh. 2.1.Heb 7:25Rom 8:31 John 2:1do note any respect to God, but only to us; if he does any thing with respect to us in expiation of sin, it must be either declaring, perswading, p. 219or actual deliverance; but it is none of these by their own assertions; and therefore that which they call Christ's Oblation, or his being in Heaven, signifies nothing as to the expiation of sin: and it is unreasonable to suppose that a thing, which hath no influence at all upon it, should be looked on as a condition in order to it. From whence it appears, that while our Adversaries do make the exercise of Christ's Priesthood to respect us and not God, they destroy the very nature of it, and leave Christ only an empty name without any thing answering to it: But if Christ be truly a High-Priest, as the Apostle asserts that he is, from thence it follows that he must have a respect to God in offering up gifts and sacrifices for sin: which was the thing to be proved.

VI. 2.Ephes. 5.2. Proves the death of Christ an Expiatory Sacrifice and an oblation to God.Eph 5:2 That Christ did exercise this Priestly Office in the Oblation of himself to God upon the Cross. Which I shall prove by two things. 1. Because the death of Christ is said in Scripture to be an Offering, and a Sacrifice to God. 2. Because Christ is said to offer up himself antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. 1. Because the death of Christ is said to be an offering and a sacrifice to p. 220God, which is plain from the words of St. Paul, Eph. 5.2.Eph 5:2as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour. Our Adversaries do not deny that the death of Christ is here called an Oblation, but they deny, That it is meant of an Expiatory Sacrifice, but of a Free-will offering;Crell. c. 10. sect. 47. and the reason Crellius gives is, because that phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is generally and almost always used of sacrifices which are not Expiatory; but if ever they be used of an Expiatory Sacrifice, they are not applied to that which was properly expiatory in it, viz. the offering up of the blood, for no smell, saith he, went up from thence, but to the burning of the fat, and the Kidneys, which although required to perfect the expiation, yet not being done till the High-Priest returned out of the Holy of Holies, hath nothing correspondent to the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ, where all things are perfected before Christ the High-Priest goes forth of his Sanctuary. How inconsistent these last words are with what they assert concerning the expiation of sin by actual deliverance at the great day, the former discourse hath p. 221already discovered. For what can be more absurd, than to say, that all things which pertain to the expiation of sin are perfected before Christ goes forth from his Sanctuary, and yet to make the most proper expiation of sin to lie in that act of Christ which is consequent to his going forth of the Sanctuary, viz. when he proceeds to judge the quick and the dead. But of that already. We now come to a punctual and direct answer, as to which two things must be enquired into. 1. What the importance of the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour is? 2. What the Sacrifices are to which that phrase is applied? 1. For the importance of the phrase. The first time we read it used in Scripture was upon the occasion of Noah's Sacrifice after the flood, of which it is said,Gen. 8.20, 21.Gen 8:20Gen 8:21 that he offered burnt-offerings on the Altar, and the Lord smelled a savour of rest, or a sweet savour. Which we are not wont to imagine in a gross corporeal manner, as Crellius seems to understand it, when he saith, the blood could not make such a savour as the fat and the Kidneys; for surely, none ever thought the smell of flesh burnt was a sweet-smelling savour of it self, and we must least of all imagine that of God, which Porphyry p. 222saith, was the property only of the worst of Daemons to be pleased, and as it were, to grow fat, foreign, with the smell and vapours of blood, Porphyr. de abstinent. l. 2. sect. 42.and flesh, (by which testimony, it withal appears, that the same steams in Sacrifices were supposed to arise from the blood as the flesh:) But we are to understand that phrase in a sense agreeable to the divine nature, which we may easily do, if we take it in the sense the Syriack Version takes it in, when it calls it, Odorem placabilitatis, or the savour of rest, as the word properly signifies; for foreign is the word formed from the Verb foreign which is used for the resting of the Ark, v. 4. of the same Chapter, and so it imports a rest after some commotion, and in that sense is very proper to Atonement, or that whereby God makes his anger to rest; so Aben Ezra upon that place expounds the Savour of rest, to be such a one which makes God cease from his anger: Thence in Hiphil foreign signifies to appease, or to make peace; in which sense it is used by R. Solom. upon Isa. 27.5. Munster tells us the sense is, Deus nunc quievit ab ira & placatus fuit, and to the same purpose Vatablus: which sense is most agreeable p. 223to the design of the following words, in which God expresseth his great kindness, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; which are words highly expressing, how much God was propitiated by the Sacrifice which Noah offered,Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 1. c. 4. and therefore Iosephus doth well interpret this to be a proper Expiatory Sacrifice; that God would now be atoned, and send no more such a deluge upon the world; which he saith was the substance of Noah's prayer, when he offered this Burnt-offering, and that God would receive his Sacrifice, foreign, That he would no more receive such displeasure against the earth: So that the first time ever this expression was used, it is taken in the proper sense of an Expiatory Sacrifice.

VII.Crellius his mistakes about the kinds of sacrifices. And by that the second enquiry may be easily resolved; viz. What kind of Sacrifices it doth belong to, which we see in the first place is, to Expiatory, which Crellius denies by a great mistake of the sense of the phrase, and of the nature of the Offerings, concerning which this expression is most used; viz. Holocausts, as though those were not Expiatory Sacrifices: But if we can make it p. 222duplicate page p. 223duplicate page p. 224appear, that the Holocausts were Expiatory Sacrifices, then it will follow, that this phrase doth most properly agree to a Sacrifice designed for Expiation. But Crellius here speaks very confusedly concerning Sacrifices, opposing Holocausts and Freewill-offerings to Expiatory Sacrifices; whereas the Freewill-offerings might be Expiatory as well as Eucharistical; that denomination not respecting the end the Sacrifices were designed for, but that the precise time of offering them was not determined by the Law; as in the stated and solemn Sacrifices. For the general distribution of Sacrifices, seems proper into Propitiatory and Eucharistical; which distinction is thought by some to hold from the first time we read of Sacrifices in Scripture; because the Sacrifice of Cain was of the fruits of the ground, Gen. 4.3, 4.Gen 4:3Gen 4:4and of Abel, of the Firstlings of his flock. Although there seems to be nothing meant by this difference of Sacrifices, but the diversity of their imployments, either of them Sacrificing according to them; and I cannot say what some do, that the reason of God's rejecting Cain's Sacrifice, was because it was not designed for expiation. But the practice of after ages, wherein we have a fuller account of the grounds of the several Sacrifices, p. 225makes it appear, that the Expiatory Sacrifices before the Law, were all Burnt-offerings; and of all those who were not under the particular obligation of that Law: As is plain in the Expiatory Sacrifices of Iob for h…s Sons,Job 1.5.42.8.Job 1:5Job 1:42Job 1:8 and for his fr…ends, which were Burnt-offerings; and among the Iews, all the Sacrifices that were offered up before the Levitical Law, were, as the Iews themselves tell us, only Burnt-offerings: And after the setling of their Worship among themselves,Selden de jure nat. & gent. apud Ebrae. l. 3. c. 2. &c. 6. they did receive Burnt-offerings for expiation from strangers, as Mr. Selden at large proves from the Iewish Writers. It seems then very strange, that since Burnt-offerings before the Law were Expiatory, and under the Law they continued so for strangers, they should be of another nature for the Iews themselves. But what reason is there for it in the Text? not the least that I can find, but expresly the contrary. For in the beginning of Leviticus, where the Law for Burnt-offerings is delivered, the words are,Levit. 1.….Lev 1 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him; which is as much as is ever said of any Expiatory Sacrifices: And in the p. 226Verse before, where we render foreign of his own voluntary will; it is by the vulgar Latin rendred, Ad placandum sibi Dominum; by the Syriack Version, Ad placationem sibi obtinendam à Domino; and to the same purpose by the Chaldee Paraphrast; but no one Version considerable that so renders it, as to make Burnt-offerings to be Free-will offerings here,Lev. 7.16.22.18 &c. Lev. 6.7.Lev 7:16Lev 7:22Lev 7:18Lev 6:7 which are spoken of distinctly, and by themselves afterwards: And the Chaldee Paraphrast, Ionathan thus explains, This is the Law of the Burnt-offering; i. e. Quod venit ad expiandum pro cogitationibus cordis; but although the Iews be not fully agreed what the Burnt-offerings were designed to expiate, yet they consent that they were of an Expiatory nature. Which might make us the more wonder, that Crellius and others should exclude them from it, but the only reason given by him is,Crell. c. 10. p. 530. because they are distinguished from Sacrifices for sin, as though no Sacrifices were of an Expiatory nature but they, and then the Trespass-offerings must be excluded too, for they are distinguished from Sin-offerings as well as the other. The ignorance of the Iews in the reason of their own customs, hath been an occasion of great mistakes among p. 227Christians, concerning the nature of them; when they judge of them according to the blind or uncertain conjectures which they make concerning them: So that the Text is oft-times far clearer than their Commentaries are. Setting aside then the intricate and unsatisfactory niceties of the Iewish Writers, about the several reasons of the Burnt-offerings and Sin and Trespass-offerings, and the differences they make between them, which are so various and incoherent, I shall propose this conjecture concerning the different reasons of them, viz. That some Sacrifices were assumed into the Jewish Religion, which had been long in use in the world before, and were common to them with the Patriarchs, and all those who in that age of the world did fear and serve God, and such were the Burnt-offerings for expiation of sin, and the fruits of the earth by way of gratitude to God. Other Sacrifices were instituted among them, with a particular respect to themselves, as a people governed by the Laws of God: And these were of several sorts; 1. Symbolical, of God's presence among them, such was the daily Sacrifice, instituted as a testimony of God's presence, Exod. 29. p. 228from v 38. to the end. 2. Occasional, for some great mercies vouchsa…ed to them, as the Passover and the Solemn Festivals, &c. 3. Expiatory, for the sins committed against their Law: And these were of three sorts; 1. Such as were wholly consumed to the honour of God, which were the Burnt-offerings. 2. Such, of which some part was consumed upon the Altar, and some part sell to the share of the Priests; and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself, under the foreign, or else generally comprehended under the foreign as being allowed to be expiated, because committed through inadvertency. 3. Such, whereof a less part was consumed, as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation, mentioned Levit. 23.19. whereof the blood was sprinkled, only the inwards burnt, and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them, as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons (of which as being private Sacrifices, I have here no occasion to speak) but only by the Priests in the Court: and these had something of expiation in them: For thence, saith Vatablus, the Peace-offering was called by the Greeks foreign, i. e. Expiatorium, and the LXX. commonly render it, foreign p. 229foreign, and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was, That it made peace between God and him that offered it: But the great reason I insist on, is, Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice, were in this too; the slaying of the Beast, the sprinkling of the blo…d, and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God, which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice; for the shedding of the blood, noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity; and, the sprinkling of it on the Altar, and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice, or the whole there, that it was designed for the expiation of sin. From whence it follows, that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour, being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices, is very properly used by St. Paul, concerning Christ's giving up himself for us. so that from this phrase, nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ, but rather it is fully agreeable to it.

VIII.What influence the mactation of th… sacrifice had on expiation. But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument, to prove that Christ's death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice; viz. That the notion of a sacrifice, p. 230doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of God, Crell. c. 10 p. 533.to which the mactation is but a bare preparation, which he proves, Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests, Ezek. 44.10, 11. but the oblation only to the Priests. To this I answer, 1. The mactation may be considered two ways, either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life, or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed: As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments, so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment; but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice, so the shedding of the blood, hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin. And that by this clear Argument, The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul;Levit. 17.11.Lev 17:11 and the reason given is, because the life of the flesh is in the blood: So that which was the life, is the great thing which makes the Atonement; and when the blood was shed, the life was then given; from whence it follows, that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end. Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to p. 231the foreign, the shedding of the blood;Heb. 9.22.Heb 9:22 and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar, or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies, both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God, which was already shed for the expiation of sins, which was therefore necessary to be performed, that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation. For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts, which was the meanest part of the service, the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary, and least of all that of the High-Priest, unless some solemn action of his had been performed, such as the entring into the Holy of Holies, on the day of expiation, and carrying it, and sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering in order to the expiation of the sins of the people. And it is observable, that although the Levitical Law be silent in the common Sacrifices, who were to kill them whether the Priests or the Levites; yet on that day whereon the High-Priest was to appear himself for the expiation of sin, it is expresly said, that he should not only p. 232kill the bullock of the sin-offering, Levit. 16.11, 15.Lev 16:11Lev 16:15which is for himself, but the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people. And although the Talmudists dispute from their Traditions on both sides, whether any one else might on the day of expiation, slay the sin-offerings besides the High-Priest; yet it is no news for them to dispute against the Text, and the Talmud it self is clear, that the High-Priest did it. From whence it appears, there was something peculiar on that day as to the slaying o… the sin-offerings;… cap 4. sect. … cap. … sect. 4. and if our Adversaries opinion hold good, that the Sacrifices on the day of expiation did, if not alone, yet chiefly represent the Sacrifice of Christ, no greater argument can be brought against themselves than this is, for the office of the High-Priest did not begin at h…s carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies, but the slaying the sacrifice did belong to him too: from whence it will unavoidably follow, that Christ did not enter into his Office of High-Priest, when he entred into Heaven, but when the Sacrifice was to be slain which was designed for the expiation of sins. It is then to no purpose at all, if Crellius could prove that sometimes in ordinary Sacrifices, (which he will not say, the p. 233Sacrifice of Christ was represented by) the Levites might kill the beasts for Sacrifice; for it appears, that in these Sacrifices, wherein themselves contend that Christ's was represented, the office of the High-Priest did not begin with entring into the Sanctuary, but with the mactation of that Sacrifice whose blood was to be carried in thither. Therefore if we speak of the bare instruments of mactation in the death of Christ, those were the Iews, and we make not them Priests in it, for they aimed at no more than taking away his life (as the Popae among the Romans, and those whose bare Office it was to kill the beasts for Sacrifice among the Iews did:) but if we consider it with a respect to him that offered up his life to God, then we say, that Christ was the High-Priest in doing it; it being designed for the expiation of sin; and by vertue of this blood shed for that end, he enters into Heaven as the Holy of Holies, there ever living to make intercession for us. But the vertue of the consequent acts, depends upon the efficacy of the blood shed for expiation; otherwise the High-Priest might have entred with the same effect into the Holy of Holies with any other blood besides that p. 234which was shed on purpose as a sin-offering, for expiation of the sins of the people; which it was unlawful for him to do. And from hence it is, that the Apostle to the Hebrews insists so much on the comparison between the blood of Christ, and the blood of the legal Sacrifices, Heb. 9.13, 14.10.4, 10.Heb 9:13Heb 9:14Heb 9:10Heb 9:4and the efficacy of the one far above the other, in its power of expiation; which he needed not to have done, if the shedding of his blood, had been only a preparation for his entrance on his Priesthood in Heaven. So that the proper notion of a Sacrifice for sin, as it notes the giving the life of one for the expiation of the sins of another, doth properly lie in the mactation, though other sacrificial acts may be consequent upon it. So it was in the animales hostiae among the Romans, Macrob. Saturn. l. 3. c. 5.in which, saith Macrobius, Sola anima Deo sacratur: of which he tells us Virgil properly speaks in those words, Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis. And that we may the better understand what he means by the anima here, he saith elsewhere (as Macrobius and Servius p. 235observe out of his excellent Skill and accuracy in the Pontifical rites)

Sanguine placastis ventos & virgine caesa,

Cum primum Iliacas Danai venistis ad oras:

Sanguine quaerendi reditus, animaque litandum

Argolica.

Which shews, that the expiation was supposed to lie in the blood which they called the Soul, as the Scripture doth. And the Persians, as Strabo tells us, looked upon the bare mactation as the Sacrifice, for they did not porricere as the Romans called it, they laid none of the parts of the Sacrifice upon the Altar to be consumed there,Strabo, l. 15. foreign. For God regarded nothing but the Soul in the sacrifice: Eustath. in Hom. Iliad. 1. Strabo. l. 3.which words Eustathius likewise useth upon Homer, of the Sacrifices of the Magi. And Strabo affirms of the ancient Lusitani, that they cut off nothing of the Sacrifice, but consumed the entrails whole; but though such Sacrifices which were for divination were not thought expiatory, and therefore p. 236different from the animales hostiae, yet among the Persians, every Sacrifice had a respect to expiation of the whole people. For Herodotus tells us, that every one that offers Sacrifice among them,Herod. l. 1. foreign, prays for good to all Persians and the King. But thus much may serve to prove against Crellius, that the mactation in an Expiatory Sacrifice, was not a meer preparation to a Sacrifice, but that it was a proper Sacrificial act, and consequently that Christ acted as High-Priest, when he gave himself for us, an offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.

Whether Christ's Oblation of himself once to God, were in Heaven or on Earth.IX. But this will further appear from those places wherein Christ is said to offer up himself once to God: the places to this purpose are, Heb. 7.27. Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up Sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the Peoples, for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Heb. 9.14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your Conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. V. 25, 26, 27, 28. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High-Priest entreth p. 237into the holy place every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World: but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the Iudgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb. 10.10, 11, 12. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all. And every High-Priest, standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sate down on the right hand of God. To these places Crellius gives this answer,Crell. cap. 10. sect. 54. That the name of Oblation as applyed to Christ, primarily signifies Christ's first entrance into Heaven, and appearance before the face of God, there, but consequently the continuance of that appearance; so that when a thing is once actually exhibited and presented, it is said to be once offered, although being offered, it always remains in the same place, and so may p. 238be said to be a continual Oblation. But this first appearance, saith he, hath a peculiar agreement with the legal Oblation; and therefore the name of Oblation doth most properly belong to that, because Christ by this means obtained that power on which the perfect remission of our sins depends: but although the continuance of that appearance, seems only consequentially to have the name of Oblation belonging to it, yet in its own nature, it hath a nearer conjunction with the effect of the Oblation, viz. the remission of sins, or deliverance from punishment, and doth of it self confer more to it than the other doth. And therefore in regard of that, Christ is said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood, and to offer and intercede for us, from the time he is said to sit down at the right hand of God. Against this answer, I shall prove these two things, 1. That it is incoherent, and repugnant to it self. 2. That it by no means agrees to the places before mentioned. 1. That it is incoherent and repugnant to it self in two things. 1. In making that to be the proper Oblation in correspondency to the Oblations of p. 239the Law, which hath no immediate respect to the expiation of sins. 2. In making that to have the most immediate respect to the expiation of sins, which can in no tolerable sense be called an Oblation. For the first, since Crellius saith, that the proper notion of Oblation is to be taken from the Oblations in the Levitical Law, we must consider what it was there, and whether Christ's first entrance into Heaven can have any correspondency with it. An Oblation under the Law was in general, any thing which was immediately dedicated to God, but in a more limited sense it was proper to what was dedicated to him by way of Sacrifice according to the appointments of the Levitical Law. We are not now enquiring what was properly called an Oblation in other Sacrifices, but in those which then were for expiation of sin; And in the Oblation was, first of the persons for whom the Sacrifice was offered. So in the Burnt-offering, the person who brought it,Lev. 1.3▪Lev 1:3 was to offer it at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation: i. e. as the Iews expound it, at the entrance of the Court of the Priests, and there he was to lay his hands upon the head of it, V. 4▪and it shall be accepted for him p. 240to make atonement for him. This Offering was made before the Beast was slain; after the killing the Beast, then the Priests were to make an Offering of the blood, by sprinkling it round about the Altar of Burnt-offerings; the rest of the blood, say the Iews, was poured out by the Priests, at the South-side of the Altar upon the foundation, where the two holes were for the passage into the Channel, which convey'd the blood into the valley of Kidron; thus the blood being offered, the parts of the beast, were by the Priests to be laid upon the Altar, and there they were all to be consumed by fire; and then it was called an Offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. The same rites were used in the Peace-offerings, and Trespass-offerings, as to the laying on of hands, and the sprinkling the blood, and consuming some part by fire: and in the sin-offerings, there was to be the same imposition of hands: but concerning the sprinkling of the blood, and the way of consuming the remainders of the Sacrifice, there was this considerable difference; that in the common sin-offerings for particular persons, the blood was sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offerings, Lev. 4.25, 30.Lev 4:25Lev 4:30but in the sin-offerings for the High-Priest and p. 241the Congregation, or all the People, he was to carry the blood within the Sanctuary, V. 6.and to sprinkle of it seven times before the Veil of the Sanctuary; and some of the blood was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense; but the remainder of the blood, and the same things (which were offered by fire in Peace-offerings) were to be disposed of accordingly, on the Altar of Burnt-offerings. And withal, there was this great difference, that in other sin-offerings the Priests were to eat the remainder of the sacrifice in the Holy place; but in these there was nothing to be eaten by them;Lev. 6.26.Lev 6:26 for the whole Bullock was to be carried forth without the Camp, and there he was to be burned till all were consumed. For it was an express Law, That no sin-offerings, Lev. 4.11, 12.Lev 4:11Lev 4:12whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to reconcile withal in the Holy-place, shall be eaten: Lev. 6.30.Lev 6:30it shall be burnt in the fire. All the difference that was on the great day of Atonement, was this, that the High-Priest himself was to slay the Sin-offerings, and then to carry the blood of them into the Holy of Holies, Lev. 16.14, 15.Lev 16:14Lev 16:15and there was to sprinkle the blood with his finger towards the mercy-seat seven times: after which, & the sending away the scape-goat, p. 242the ceremonies were the same for the Atonement of the people, which were at other solemn sin-offerings, for the Priest or the people.

X. From all which being thus laid together, we shall observe several things, which are very material to our purpose:

All things necessary to a legal oblation concur in the death of Christ.1. That in the Oblations which were made for expiation of sins, the difference between the mactation and the oblation, did arise from the difference between the Priest and the Sacrifice. For the Priest's Office was to atone, but he was to atone by the Sacrifice; on which account, although the Priest were to offer the Sacrifice for himself, yet the oblation did not lie in the bare presenting himself before God, but in the presenting the blood of that Sacrifice, which was shed in order to expiation. If we could have supposed, that the High-Priest under the Law, instead of offering a Goat for a Sin-offering for the people, on the day of Atonement, should have made an oblation of himself to God, by dying for the expiation of their sins: In this case, his death being the Sacrifice, and himself the Priest, the mactation, as it relates to his own act, and his oblation had been one and the same thing. For his death had been nothing else, but the offering up himself to God, p. 243in order to the expiation of the sins of the people; and there can be no reason, why the oblation must be of necessity something consequent to his death, since all things necessary to a perfect oblation do concur in it. For where there is something solemnly devoted to God, and in order to the expiation of sins, and by the hand of a Priest, there are all things concurring to a legal oblation; but in this case, all these things do concur, and therefore there can be no imaginable necessity of making the oblation of Christ, only consequent to his Ascension, since in his death all things concur to a proper oblation. In the Law, we grant that the oblation made by the Priest, was consequent to the death of the beast for Sacrifice; but the reason of that was, because the beast could not offer up it self to God, and God had made it necessary, that the Priest should expiate sins, not by himself, but by those Sacrifices, and therefore the oblation of the blood was after the Sacrifice was slain; neither could this have been solved barely by the Priest's slaying of the Sacrifices; for this being an act of violence towards the beasts that were thus killed, could not be a proper oblation, p. 244which must suppose a consent antecedent to it. All which shewed the great imperfection of the Levitical Law, in which so many several things were to concur, to make up a sacrifice for sin; viz. The first offering made by the party concerned, of what was under his dominion, viz. The beast to be sacrificed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, but the beast not being able to offer up it self, if was necessary for the offering up its blood, that it must be slain by others; and for the better understanding, not only of the efficacy of the blood, but the concurrence of the Priest for expiation, he was to take the blood, and sprinkle some of it on the Altar, and pour out the rest at the foundation of it. But since we assert a far more noble and excellent Sacrifice, by the Son of God freely offering up himself, to be made a Sacrifice for the sins of the world, why may not this be as proper an oblation made unto God, as any was under the Law, and far more excellent, both in regard of the Priest and the Sacrifice: why should his oblation of himself then be made only consequent to his death and resurrection? Which latter, being by our Adversaries made not his own p. 245act, but God's upon him, and his entrance into Heaven, being given him (as they assert) as a reward of his sufferings, in what tolerable sense can that be called an oblation of himself, which was conferred upon him as a reward of his former sufferings? From whence it follows, that upon our Adversaries own grounds, the death of Christ may far more properly be called the oblation of himself, than his entrance into Heaven; and that there is no necessity of making the oblation of Christ consequent to his death, there being so great a difference between the Sacrifice of Christ, and that of the Sacrifices for sin under the Levitical Law.

2. We observe, That the oblation as performed by the Priest, did not depend upon his presenting himself before God, but upon the presenting the blood of a Sacrifice, which had been already slain for the expiation of sins. If the Priest had gone into the Holy of Holies, and there only presented himself before the Mercy-seat, and that had been all required in order to the expiation of sins, there had been some pretence for our Adversaries making Christ's presenting himself in Heaven, to be the oblation of himself to God; but under the Law, the efficacy p. 246of the High Priest's entrance into the Holy of Holies, did depend upon the blood which he carried in thither, which was the blood of the Sin-offering, which was already slain for the expiation of sins: And in correspondency to this, Christ's efficacy in his entrance into Heaven, as it respects our expiation, must have a respect to that Sacrifice which was offered up to God antecedent to it. And I wonder our Adversar…es do so much insist on the High Priest's entring into the most holy place once a year, as though all the expiation had depended upon that; whereas all the promise of expiation, was not upon his bare entrance into it, but upon the blood which he carried along with him, and sprinkled there: In correspondency to which, our Saviour is not barely said to enter into Heaven, Heb. 9.12.Heb 9:12and present himself to God, but that he did this by his own blood, having obtained eternal Redemption for us.

3. We observe, That there was something corres…ondent in the death of Christ, to somewhat consequent to the oblation under the Law, and therefore there can be no reason to suppose, that the oblation of Christ must be consequent to his death: for that destroys the correspondency between them. Now this p. 247appears in this particular, in the solemn Sacrifices for sin, after the sprinkling of the blood, which was carried into the Holy place to reconcile withall, all the remainder of the Sacrifice was to be burnt without the Camp, and this held on the day of Atonement, Heb. 13.12.Heb 13:12as well as in other Sin-offerings for the Congregation. Now the Author to the Hebrews tells us, That in correspondency to this, Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate: What force is there in this, unless the blood of Christ did answer to the Sin-offerings for the people, and his oblation was supposed to be made before; and therefore that he might have all things agreeable to those Sin-offerings, the last part was to be compleated too; viz. That he was to suffer without the gate; which after the peoples settlement in Ierusalem, answered to the being burnt without the Camp in the Wilderness.

4. We observe, That the Oblation in Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, by the Priest, had always relation to the consumption of what was offered: Thus the offering of the blood, in token of the destruction of the life of the beast, whose blood was offered; for no blood was to be offered of a living creature, nor of one p. 248killed upon any other account, but for that end to be a sacrifice for sin, and after the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood, the inwards of some, and all of the other, were to be consumed by fire. And it is observable, that the greater the Sacrifice for sin was, always the more was consumed of it; as appears plainly by the forementioned difference of the Sin-offerings for private persons, and for the people; of the former, the Priests were allowed to eat, but not at all of the latter. And so it was observed among the Egyptians, in the most solemn Sacrifices for expiation, nothing was allowed to be eaten of that part which was designed for that end. For Herodotus gives us an account why the Egyptians never eat the head of any living Creatu…e;foreign. Herodot. l. 2. c 39. which is, That when they offer up a Sacrifice, they make a solemn execration upon it, that if any evil were to fall upon the persons who Sacrificed, or upon all Egypt, it might be turned upon the head of that beast: foreign. Plutarch. de Iside.And Plutarch adds, that after this solemn execration, They cut off the head, and of old, threw it into p. 249the River, but then gave it to strangers. From which custom we observe, that in a solemn Sacrifice for expiation, the guilt of the offenders, was by this rite of execration supposed to be transferred upon the head of the Sacrifice, as it was in the Sacrifices among the Jews, by the laying on of hands;Xenoph. Cyropaed. l. 7.8. Strab. l. 4. Plutarch Symp. l. 6. probl. 8. and that nothing was to be eaten of what was supposed to have that guilt transferred upon it. From hence all Expiatory Sacrifices were at first whole Burnt-offerings, as appears by the Patriarchal Sacrifices, and the customs of other Nations, and among the Jews themselves, as we have already proved in all solemn offerings for the people. And although in the sacrifices of private persons, some parts were allowed to be eaten by the Priests; yet those which were designed for expiation were consumed. So that the greater the offering was to God, the more it implied the Consumption of the thing which was so offered: How strangely improbable then is it, That the Oblation of Christ should not (as under the Law) have respect to his death and sufferings; but to his entrance into Heaven, wherein nothing is supposed to be consumed, but all things given him with far greater power, as our Adversaries p. 250suppose, than ever he had before. But we see the Apostle parallels Christ's suffering with the burning of the Sacrifices, and his blood with the blood of them, and consequently his offering up himself, must relate not to his entrance into Heaven, but to that act of his whereby he suffered for sins, and offered up his blood as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Christ's entrance into Heaven could not be the Oblation of himself mentioned.XI. From all which it appears; how far more agreeably to the Oblations under the Law, Christ is said to offer up himself for the expiation of sins by his death and sufferings, than by his entrance into Heaven; For it is apparent, that the Oblations in expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, were such upon which the expiation of sin did chiefly depend; but by our Adversaries own confession, Christ's oblation of himself by his entrance into Heaven, hath no immediate respect at all to the expiation of sin: only as the way whereby he was to enjoy that power by which he did expiate sins, as Crellius saith; now, let us consider, what more propriety there is in making this presenting of Christ in Heaven to have a correspondency with the legal Oblations, than the offering up himself upon the Cross. For, 1. on the very same reason that p. 251his entrance into Heaven is made an Oblation, his death is so too; viz. Because it was the way whereby he obtained the power of expiation; and far more properly so than the other, since they make Christ's entrance and power the reward of his sufferings, but they never make his sitting at the right hand of God, the reward of his entrance into Heaven. 2. His offering up himself to God upon the Cross, was his own act, but his entrance into Heaven was God's, as themselves acknowledge, and therefore could not in any propriety of speech be called Christ's offering up himself. 3. If it were his own act, it could not have that respect to the expiation of sins, which his death had; for our Adversaries say, that his death was by reason of our sins, and that he suffered to purge us from sin; but his entrance into Heaven was upon his own account, to enjoy that power and authority, which he was to have at the right hand of God. 4. How could Christ's entrance into Heaven, be the way for his enjoying that power which was necessary for the expiation of sin, when Christ before his entrance into Heaven, saith,Mat. 28.18.Matt 28:18 that all power was given to him in Heaven and Earth: and the reason assigned in Scripture of that power and authority which God p. 252Phil. 2.8, 9.Phil 2:8Phil 2:9gave him is, because he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the Cross: So that the entrance of Christ into Heaven, could not be the means of obtaining that power which was conferred before; but the death of Christ is mentioned on that account in Scripture. 5. If the death of Christ were no expiatory Sacrifice, the entrance of Christ into Heaven could be no Oblation proper to a High Priest; for his entrance into the Holy of Holies, was on the account of the blood of the sin-offering which he carried in with him. If there were then no expiatory Sacrifice before, that was slain for the sins of men; Christ could not be said to make any Oblation in Heaven, for the Oblation had respect to a Sacrifice already slain; so that if men deny that Christ's death was a proper Sacrifice for sin, he could make no Oblation at all in Heaven, and Christ could not be said to enter thither, as the High Priest entred into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacrifice; which is the thing which the Author to the Hebrews asserts concerning Christ.Christ's exercise of power in Heaven in no sense an Oblation to God.

XII. 2. There is as great an inconsistency in making the exercise of Christ's power in Heaven, an oblation in any sense, as in making Christ's entrance into Heaven, p. 253to be the Oblation which had correspondency with the Oblations of the Law. For what is there which hath the least resemblance with an Oblation in it? Hath it any respect to God, as all the legal Oblations had? no, for his intercession and power, Crellius saith, respect us, and not God. Was there any Sacrifice at all in it for expiation? how is it possible, that the mere exercise of power should be called a Sacrifice? What analogy is there at all between them? And how could he be then said most perfectly to exercise his Priesthood, when there was no consideration at all of any Sacrifice offered up to God? so that upon these suppositions the Author to the Hebrews must argue upon strange similitudes, and fancy resemblances to himself, which it was impossible for the Iews to understand him in, who were to judge of the nature of Priesthood and Oblations in a way agreeable to the Institutions among themselves. But was it possible for them to understand such Oblations and a Priesthood which had no respect at all to God, but wholly to the People; and such a entrance into the Holy of Holies without the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the people? But such absurdities do men betray themselves into, when they are forced to strain express places p. 254of Scripture to serve an hypothesis, which they think themselves oblig'd to maintain.

XIII. We now come to shew that this interpretation of Crellius doth not agree with the circumstances of the places before mentioned,Crellius his sense repugnant to the circumstances of the places. Heb. 7.27.9.26.10.10.Heb 7:27Heb 7:9Heb 7:26Heb 7:10, which will easily appear by these brief considerations. 1. That the Apostle always speaks of the offering of Christ as a thing past and once done, so as not to be done again; which had been very improper, if by the Oblation of Christ, he had meant the continual appearance of Christ in Heaven for us, which yet is, and will never cease to be till all his enemies be made his footstool. 2. That he still speaks in allusion to the Sacrifices which were in use among the Iews, Heb 9.12, 13 10 4.5.Heb 9:12Heb 9:13and therefore the Oblation of Christ must be in such a way as was agreeable to what was used in the Levitical Sacrifices, which we have already at large proved he could not do in our Adversaries sense. 3. That the Apostle speaks of such a Sacrifice for sins to which the sitting at the right hand of God was consequent; so that the Oblation antecedent to it must be properly that Sacrifice for sins which he offered to God; and therefore the exercise of his power for expiation of sins, which they say is meant by sitting p. 255at the right hand of God, Heb. 10.12.Heb 10:12cannot be that Sacrifice for sins: Neither can his entrance into Heaven be it, which in what sense it can be called a Sacrifice for sins, since themselves acknowledge it had no immediate relation to the expiation of them, I cannot understand. 4. The Apostle speaks of such an Offering of Christ once, which if it had been repeated, doth imply, that Christ's sufferings must have been repeated too. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the World: Heb. 9.26.Heb 9:26but the repeated exercise of Christ's power in Heaven doth imply no necessity at all of Christ's frequent suffering, nor his frequent entrance into Heaven; which might have been done without suffering, therefore it must be meant of such an offering up himself as was implyed in his death and sufferings. 5.Heb. 10.5, 10.Heb 10:5Heb 10:10 He speaks of the offering up of that body which God gave him when he came into the World; but our Adversaries deny, that he carried the same Body into Heaven, and therefore he must speak not of an offering of Christ in Heaven, but what was performed here on Earth. But here our Adversaries have shewn us a tryal of their skill, when they tell us with much confidence that the World p. 256into which Christ is here said to come, is not to be understood of this World, Crell cap. 10 sect 53.but of that to come, which is not only contrary to the general acceptation of the word when taken absolutely as it is here, but to the whole scope and design of the place. For he speaks of that World wherein Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were used, and the Levitical Law was observed, although not sufficient for perfect expiation, and so rejected for that end; and withal he speaks of that World wherein the chearful obedience of Christ to the will of his Father was seen, for he saith,Heb 10.7, 9.Heb 10:7Heb 10:9 Lo I come to do thy will, O God, which is repeated afterwards; but will they say, that this World was not the place into which Christ came to obey the Will of his Father? and how could it be so properly said of the future World, Lo I come to do thy will; when they make the design of his ascension to be the receiving the reward of his doing and suffering the will of God upon Earth?

Objections answered. Heb. 7.26.8.4.7.16.Heb 7:26Heb 7:8Heb 7:4Heb 7:7Heb 7:16XIV. But yet they attempt to prove from the same Author to the Hebrews, that Christ's entrance into Heaven, was necessary to his being a perfect High-Priest; for he was to be made higher than the Heavens; and if he were on earth, p. 257he should not be a Priest; but he was a Priest after the power of an endless life: Neither could he, say they, be a perfect High-Priest, till those words were spoken to him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; 5.5.which as appears by other places, was after the Resurrection: But all the sufferings he underwent in the world, were only to qualify him for this Office in Heaven; therefore it is said, 2.17.That in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest, &c. This is the substance of what is produced by Crellius and his Brethren, Crell. c. 10. sect. 53.to prove that Christ did not become a perfect High-Priest, till he entred into Heaven: But it were worth the knowing, what they mean by a perfect High-Priest; Is it that Christ did then begin the Office of a High-Priest, and that he made no offering at all before? No, that they dare not assert at last, but that there was no perfect Sacrifice offered for sin, otherwise Socinus contends, That Christ did offer upon earth, and that for himself too: Socin. praelect. c. ult.So that all kind of offering is not excluded by themselves, before Christ's … into Heaven▪ But if they mean by perfect High-Priest in Heaven, that his Office p. 258of High-Priest was not consummated by what he did on earth, but that a very considerable part of the Priesthood of Christ was still remaining to be performed in Heaven; it is no more than we do freely acknowledge, and this is all we say is meant by those places: For the Apostles design is to prove, the excellency of the Priesthood of Christ above the Aaronical; which he doth, not only from the excellency of the Sacrifice which he offered, above the blood of Bulls and Goats; but from the excellency of the Priest, who did excel the Aaronical Priests; both in regard of his calling from God, which is all the Apostle designs, Heb. 5.5. not at all intending to determine the time when he was made, but by whom he was made High-Priest, even by him that had said, Thou art my Son, &c. and in regard of the excellency of the Sanctuary which he entred into, which was not an earthly, but a heavenly Sanctuary; and in regard of the perpetuity of his function there, Not going in once a year, as the High-Priests under the Law did, but there ever living to make intercession for VsUs; Now this being the Apostles design, we may easily understand why he saith, That he was to be a heavenly High-Priest, p. 259and if he had been on earth, he could not have been a Priest: The meaning of which is only this, that if Christ's Office had ended in what he did on earth, he would not have had such an excellency as he was speaking of; for then he had ceased to be at all such a High Priest, having no Holy of Holies to go into, which should as much transcend the earthly Sanctuary, as his Sacrifice did the blood of Bulls and Goats: Therefore in correspondency to that Priesthood, which he did so far excell in all the parts of it, he was not to end his Priesthood merely with the blood which was shed for a Sacrifice, but he was to carry it into Heaven, and present it before God, and to be a perpetual intercessor in the behalf of his people: And so was in regard of the perpetuity of his Office, a Priest after the Law of an endless Life: But lest the people should imagine, that so great and excellent a High Priest, being so far exalted above them, should have no sense or compassion upon the infirmities of his people, therefore to encourage them to adhere to him, he tells them, That he was made like to his Brethren; and therefore they need not doubt, but by the sense which he had of the infirmities p. 260of humane nature, he will have pity on the weaknesses of his people; which is all the Apostle means by those expressions. So that none of these places do destroy the Priesthood of Christ on earth, but only assert the excellency, and the continuance of it in Heaven: Which latter, we are as far from denying, as our Adversaries are from granting the former. And thus much may suffice for the second thing, to prove the death of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin; viz. The Oblation which Christ made of himself to God by it.