Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction, Discourse · Chapter 6

Concerning the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction · Discourse · Chapter 6

p. 261CHAP. VI.

I. That the effects of proper Expiatory Sacrifices belong to the death of Christ, which either respect the sin or the person. Of the true notion of expiation of sin, as attributed to Sacrifices. Of the importance of foreign, as applied to them. Socinus his proper sense of it examined. II. Crellius his Objections answered. III. The Iews notion of foreign. The Sacrifices not bare conditions of pardon, nor expiated merely as a slight part of obedience. IV. God's expiating sin, destroys not expiation by Sacrifice. V. The importance of foreign and foreign, relating to Sacrifices. VI. Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices. VII. And from thence, and the places of Scripture which mention it, proved not to be merely declarative. If it had been so, it had more properly belonged to his Resurrection than his death. VIII. The Death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the Consequents of it; because of the peculiar effects of the death of Christ in Scripture. IX. And p. 262because Expiation is attributed to him antecedently to his entrance into Heaven. X. No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christ's entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God. XI. The effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, respecting the person, belong to the death of Christ, which are Atonement and Reconciliation. Of the signification of foreign and foreign. XII. The Reconciliation by Christ's death, doth not merely respect us, but God; why the latter less used in the New Testament. A twofold Reconciliation with God mentioned in Scripture. Crellius his evasion answered. XIII. The Objections from God's being reconciled in the sending his Son. XIV. And the inconsistency of the Freeness of Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction answered, and the whole concluded.

Of the true notion of Expiation, as attributed to Sacrifices.I. THE last thing to prove the death of Christ a proper Expiatory Sacrifice, is, That the effects of a proper Sacrifice for sin are attributed to it. Which do either respect the sins committed, and are then called Expiation and Remission, or the persons, who were guilty of them, as they p. 263stand obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and so the effect of them is Atonement and Reconciliation. Now these we shall prove do most properly and immediately refer to the death of Christ; and are attributed to it, as the procuring cause of them; and not as a bare condition of Christ's entrance into Heaven, or as comprehending in it the consequents of it. I b…gin with the Expiation and Remission of sins; as to which Socinus doth acknowledge,Socin. de Christo servat. p. 2. l. 13. Crell. cap. 10▪ sect. 26. That the great correspondency doth lie between Christ's and the Legal Sacrifices. We are therefore to enquire: 1. What respect the Expiation of sins had to the Sacrifices under the Law. 2. In what sense the Expiation of sins is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ: For the due explication of the respect which Expiation of sins had to the Legal Sacrifices, we are to consider in what sense Expiation is understood, and in what respect it is attributed to them. For this we are to enquire into the importance of the several phrases it is set forth by, which are foreign and foreign in the Old Testament, foreign in the New; all which are acknowledged by our Adversaries to have a peculiar respect to the p. 264Expiation made by a Sacrifice. Crell. c. 10. s…ct. 38.We shall begin with the former, because Crellius objects this against Grotius, That he imployed his greatest diligence in the explication of the Greek and Latin words for Expiation of sin, and was contented only to say, that the Hebrew words would bear the same signification: Whereas, saith he, he ought to have proved, that the Hebrew words do require that sense which he takes them in. But by Crellius his leave, Grotius took the best course was to be taken in words, whose signification is so obscure as those are in the Hebrew Language. For foreign being so very rarely used in Scripture in that which Socinus and Crellius contend to be the proper and natural signification of it; viz. To hide or cover, and so frequently in the sense of Expiation, what better way could be taken for determining the sense of it, as applied to Sacrifices, than by insisting upon those words which are used in the New Testament, to the very same purpose that foreign is used in the Old? For they cannot pretend that which they say is the most proper sense, can be applied to this subject, viz. To cover with pitch, or a bituminous matter, which is called foreign, Gen. 6.14. therefore it must of necessity p. 265be taken in another sense here. But Socinus contends, That it ought to be taken in a sense most agreeable to that, which is, saith he, that the Expiation of sin be nothing else, but the covering of it, Socin. de Servat. p. 2. c. 11.by God's grace and benignity. Thence, saith he, David saith, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is covered. Psal. 32.1.Ps 32:1But how can this prove, that the proper signification of foreign as applied to sin, is covered by God's Grace, when neither the word foreign is here used, nor is there any respect at all mentioned of an Expiation by Sacrifice, which is the thing we are discoursing of? And is the covering of sin such an easie and intelligible phrase, that this should be made choice of to explain the difficulty of foreign by? What is it that they would have us understand by the covering sin? surely not to make it stronger and more lasting, as the Ark was covered, with that bituminous matter for that end, and yet this would come the nearest to the proper sense of foreign. So that from their own interpretation it appears, that foreign as applied to the expiation of sin by Sacrifices, cannot be taken so much as in allusion to that other sense; for their sense of Expiation, is either by the destruction of sin, or deliverance of the p. 266sinner from the punishment of it, but what resemblance is there between the covering of a thing, in order to its preservation, and the making it not to be, or at least destroying all the power of it? But supposing we should grant that it hath some allusion to the sense of covering, why must it necessarily be supposed to be done by the meer Grace of God, as excluding all antecedent causes which should move to it? would not the propriety of the sense remain as well, supposing a moving cause, as excluding it? What should hinder, but that God may be said as well to cover sin upon a Sacrifice as to forgive it, and this is very frequently used upon a Sacrifice, That the sin shall be forgiven? Lib. 4.26. Ver. 31, …5.But yet themselves acknowledge, that the Sacrifices were conditions required in order to expiation; if then foreign hath an immediate respect to God's immediate favour and benignity, how comes it to be used where a condition is necessarily supposed in order to it? Had it not been more agreeable to this benignity of God to have pardon'd sin without requiring any sacrifice for it, than so strictly insisting upon the offering up Sacrifice in order to it, and then declaring that the sin is expiated, p. 267and it should be forgiven? from hence we see that there is no necessity why foreign should be use as applied to sacrifices in a sense most agreeable to that of covering with pitch, nor that it is not possible it should have such a sense when applied to sins; and withal that it is very consistent with an antecedent condition to it, and therefore can by no means destroy satisfaction.

II. Yes, saith Crellius, it doth, Crellius his Objections answered.for expiation is explained in the Law by non imputation, Deut. 21.8. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge; and the blood shall be forgiven them. But not to impute, saith he,Crell. c. 10. sect. 9. and to receive true and full satisfaction overthrow each other: and so expiation being the same with that, will overthrow it too. To this I answer, 1. I grant that foreign is here used both as applied to God, and to the sin, and that the sense of it is used as to the people, when the prayer is that God would not lay it to their charge, which is the same with expiating of it. 2. We are to consider, what the foundation of this Prayer was, viz. the slaying of the Heifer for expiation of the uncertain murder; and when the p. 268Elders had washed their hands over the head of the Heifer, then they were to protest their own innocency, and to use this prayer. foreign Expiate thy people Israel, &c. i. e. accept of this Sacrifice as an expiation for them, and so charge not on them the innocent blood, &c. and upon doing of this it is said, foreign, and the blood shall be expiated, i. e. as the Vulgar Latin explains it, the guilt of the blood shall be taken from them. But how then should the expiating sin upon a Sacrifice slain in order thereto, destroy that satisfaction which we assert by the blood of Christ being shed in order to the expiation of our sins? Nay, it much rather sheweth the consistency and agreeableness of these one with another. For we have before proved, that the Sacrifice here did expiate the sin by a substitution, and bearing the guilt which could not have been expiated without it. But Crellius further urgeth, That God himself is here said to expiate, and therefore to expiate cannot signifie to atone or satisfie; in which sense Christ may be said to expiate too, not by atoning or satisfying, but by not imputing sins, or taking away the punishment of them by his power. To which we need no p. 269other answer than what Crellius himself elsewhere gives, viz. Cum non neget, Socinus hoc verbum placandi significationem habere. Crell. c. 20. sect. 38.That Socinus never denies but that foreign doth signifie to appease or atone; which is most evidently proved from the place mention'd by Grotius, Gen. 32.20. foreign Expiabo faciem ejus in munere, saith the interlineary Version, placabo illum muneribus, the Vulg. Lat. foreign, the LXX. and all the circumstances of the place make it appear to be meant in the proper sense of appeasing the anger of a person by something which may move him to shew favour. And if Crellius will yield this to be the sense of expiation as applied to the sacrifice of Christ, he need not quarrel with the word satisfaction. But why should he rather attribute that sense of expiation to Christ, which is alone given to God, wherein the expiation is attributed to him that receives the Sacrifice, rather than to him that offers the sacrifice in order to the atonement of another? since it is acknowledged that Christ did offer a sacrifice; and therefore there can be no reason why that sense of expiation should not belong to him, which was most peculiar to that; which we shall now sh…w to be of the same kind with what p. 270is here mentioned, viz. an appeasing by a gift offered up to God. So we find the word used to the same sense, 2 Sam. 21.3. foreign, and wherewith shall I make the atonement, i. e. wherewith shall I satisfie you for all the wrong which Saul hath done unto you? and we see afterwards it was by the death of Saul's sons. In which place it cannot be denied but that foreign not only signifies to appease, but such a kind of satisfaction as is by the death of some for the faults of others; and so comes home, not only to the importance of the expiation belonging to a Sacrifice in general; but to such a kind of expiation as is by the suffering of some in the place of others. Which though it be more clear and distinct, where one man suffers for others, yet this was sufficiently represented in the sacrifices under the Law, in which we have already proved that there was a substitution of them in the place of the offenders.

The Iews notion of foreignIII. And in this sense the Iews themselves do understand foreign, viz. such an expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the place of another.Buxtorf Lexic Talmud. v. foreign Of which many instances are collected by Buxtorf, wherein foreign is taken by the Rabbinical p. 271Writers for such an expiation, whereby one was to undergo a punishment in the place of another. So when in the title Sanhedrin the people say to the High-Priest foreign simus nos expiatio tua, let us be for an expiation for you, the Gloss explains it thus, hoc est, in nobis fiat expiatio tua, nos que subeamus tuo loco quicquid tibi evenire debet. And when they tell us how Children ought to honour their Parents after their death, they say when they recite any memorable speech of their Fathers, they are not barely to say, My Father said so: but my Lord and Father said so, would I had been the expiation of his death: i. e. as they explain it themselves, would I had undergone what he did, and they give this general rule, where ever it is said, behold I am for expiation, it is to be understood, behold I am in the place of another to bear his iniquities. So that this signifies the same with foreign or a price of redemption for others. Hence foreign is taken for a price of redemption of the life of another, and rendred by foreign, Exod. 21.30. — 30.12. Numb. 35.31, 32. where we render it satisfaction, and by foreign, Psal. 48.7. and thereby we fully understand, what our Saviour meant when he said, that he p. 272gave his Soul,Matth. 20.28.Matt 20:28 foreign, a ransome for many, and to this day the Iews call the Cock which they kill for Expiation on the day of Atonement, by the name of Cappara; and when they beat the Cock against their heads thrice, they every time use words to this purpose, Let this Cock be an exchange for me, let him be in my room, and be made an Expiation for me: let death come to him, but to me and all Israel life and happiness. I insist on these things, only to let us understand, that the Iews never understood foreign in the sense our Adversaries contend for, when applyed to an Expiatory Sacri…ice, but as implying a Commutation, and a Substitution of one in the place of another, so as by the punishment of that, the other in whose room he suffers, may obtain deliverance. Which is the sense we plead for. But the utmost which **Socin. l 2. c. 11. D…c…t Socinus victimar…m oblation…m obedientiam quandam D…o praestandam, quanquam levem continuisse, quam ex promiss… Dei le vium q…orundam erratorum … ▪Socinus and Crellius will allow to the Sacrifices in order to Expiation, is barely this, That the offering of them is to be considered …s a meer condition (that hath no other respect to the expiation of sins, than the paring a mans nails would have had, if God had required it) upon which slight obedien…e, the pardon of some light sins mig…t be ob…ained. But can any one p. 273imagine, that this was all that was designed by the Sacrifices of old, who considers the antiquity and universality of them in the world in those elder times before the Law, the great severity by which they were requir'd under the Law, the punctual prescriptions that were made in all circumstances for them, the vast and almost inestimable expence the people were at about them, but above all, the reason that God himself assigns in the Law, That the blood was given for expiation, because it was the life, and the correspondency so clearly expressed in the New Testament, between the Sacrifice of Christ, and those Levitical Sacrifices? Can any one, I say, imagine upon these considerations, that the Sacrifices had no other respect to the expiation of sin, than as they were a slight testimony of their obedience to God? Why were not an inward sorrow for sin, and tears and prayers rather made the only conditions of Expiation than such a burthensome and chargeable service imposed upon them, which at last signified nothing, but that a command being supposed, they would have sinned if they had broken it? But upon our supposition a reasonable account is given of all the p. 274expiatory Sacrifices; viz. That God would have them see, how highly he esteemed his Laws, because an expiation was not to be made for the breach of them, but by the sacrificing of the life of some Creature which he should appoint instead of the death of the Offender; and if the breach of those Laws which he had given them must require such an expiation, what might they then think would the sins of the whole world do, which must be expiated by a Sacrifice infinitely greater than all those put together were; viz. The death and sufferings of the Son of God for the sins of men? But if the offering Sacrifice had been a bare condition required of the person who committed the fault, in order to expiation; Why is it never said, That the person who offered it, did expiate his own fault thereby? For that had been the most proper sense; for if the expiation did depend on the offering the Sacrifice, as on the condition of it, then the performing the condition, gave him an immediate right to the benefit of the promise. If it be said, That his own act was not only necessary in bringing the Sacrifice, but the Priests also in offering up the blood: This will not make it at all the more reasonable; p. 275because the pardon of sin should not only depend upon a man's own act, but upon the act of another, which he could not in reason be accountable for, if he miscarried in it. If the Priest should refuse to do his part, or be unfit to do it, or break some Law in the doing of it, how hard would it seem that a mans sins could not be expiated, when he had done all that lay in his own power in order to the expiation of them, but that another person, whose actions he had no command over, neglected the doing his duty? So that if the Sacrifice had no other influence on expiation, but as a part of obedience, in all reason the expiation should have depended on no other conditions but such as were under the power of him, whose sins were to be expiated by it.

IV. But Crellius urgeth against our sense of Expiation,Gods expiating sin, destroys not expiation by sacrifices. Crell. ib. sect. 39▪ That if it were by Substitution, then the Expiation would be most properly attributed to the Sacrifices themselves; whereas it is only said, that by the Sacrifices the Expiation is obtained; but that God or the Priest do expiate and to God it belongs properly, because he takes away the guilt and punishment of sin; which is, saith he, all meant by expiation; p. 276to the Priest only consequently, as doing what God requires in order to it; and to the Sacrifices only as the conditions by which it was obtained. But if the Expiation doth properly belong to God, and implies no more than bare pardon, it is hard to conceive that it should have any necessary relation to the blood of the Sacrifice: but the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us, that Remission had a necessary respect to the shedding of blood, so that without that there was no remission. H…b 9 22.How improperly doth the Apostle discourse throughout that Chapter, wherein he speaks so much concerning the blood of the Sacrifices purifying, and in correspondency to that,Ver 13, 14. Ver. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23. the blood of Christ purging our Consciences; and that all things under the Law, were purified with blood; Had all this no other signification, but that this was a bare condition that had no other importance, but as a mere act of obedience when God had required it? why doth not the Apostle rather say, without God…s favour there is no remission, than without the shedding of blood; if all the expiation did properly belong to that, and only very remotely to the blood of the Sacrifice? What imaginable necessity was there, that Christ must shed his p. 277blood in order to the expiation of our sins, if all that blood of the Legal Sacrifices did signifie no more than a bare condition of pardon, though a slight part of obedience in it self? Why must Christ lay down his life in correspondency to these Levitical Sacrifices? for that was surely no slight part of his obedience. Why might not this condition have been dispensed with in him, since our Adversaries say, that in it self it hath no proper efficacy on the expiation of sin? And doth not this speak the greatest repugnancy to the kindness and Grace of God in the Gospel, that he would not dispense with the ignominious death of his Son, although he knew it could have no influence of it self on the expiation of the sins of the world? But upon this supposition, that the blood of Sacrifices under the Law had no proper influence upon Expiation, the Apostles discourse proceeds upon weak and insufficient grounds. For what necessity in the thing was there, because the blood of the Sacrifices was made a condition of pardon under the Law, therefore the blood of Christ must be so now; although in it self it hath no proper efficacy for that end? But the Apostles p. 278words and way of Argumentation doth imply, that there was a peculiar efficacy both in the one and the other, in order to Expiation; although a far greater in the blood of Christ, than could be in the other; as the thing typified, ought to exceed that which was the representation of it. From hence we see, that the Apostle attributes what Expiation there was under the Law, not immediately to God, as belonging properly to him, but to the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean. Which he had very great reason to do, since God expresly saith to the Iews, that the blood was given them foreign ad expiandum, to expiate for their souls, Lev. 17.11.Lev 17:11for the blood foreign shall expiate the soul. Than which words, nothing could have been more plainly said to overthrow Crellius his assertion, that Expiation is not properly or chiefly attributed to the Sacrifices, but primarily to God, and consequentially to the Priest: who is never said to expiate, but by the Sacrifice which he offered, so that his Office was barely Ministerial in it. But from this we may easily understand, in what sense God is said to expiate sins, where it hath respect to a Sacrifice p. 279(which is that we are now discoursing of, and not in any larger or more improper use of the word) for since God himself hath declared, that the blood was given for Expiation, the Expiation which belongs to God, must imply his acceptance of it for that end, for which it was offered. For the execution or discharge of the punishment belonging to him, he may be said in that sense to expiate, because it is only in his power to discharge the sinner from that obligation to punishment he lies under by his sins. And we do not say, that where expiating is attributed to him that accepts the Atonement, that it doth imply his undergoing any punishment which is impossible to suppose; but that where it is attributed to a Sacrifice, as the means of Atonement, there we say it doth not imply a bare condition, but such a Substitution of one in the place of another, that on the account of that, the fault of the offender himself is expiated thereby.

V. And to this sense the other word foreign doth very well agree;The importance of foreign, and foreign, relating to sacrifices. for Socinus and Crellius cannot deny, But that Gen. 31.39. it properly signifies Luere, or to bear punishment; although they say, it no where else signifies so, and the reason is, p. 280because it is applied to the Altar, and such other things, which are not capable of it; but doth it hence follow, that it should not retain that signification where the matter will bear it, as in the case of Sacrifices. And although it be frequently rendred by foreign, yet that will be no prejudice to the sense we plead for in respect of Sacrifices, because those words when used concerning them, do signifie Expiation too. Grotius proves…, that they do from their own nature and constant use in Greek Authors, not only signifie an antecedency of order, but a peculiar efficacy in order to Expiation. Thence expiatory Sacrifices among the Greeks were called foreign and foreign, frequently in Homer, applied to Sacrifices, foreign in Plutarch, and foreign used in the same sense; an Expiatory Sacrifice in Herodotus is call'd foreign, and to the same purpose it is used in Hermogenes, Plato and Plutarch: as among the Latins, placare, purgare, purificare, conciliare, lustrare in the same sense, and piare when used in Sacrifices, he proves to signifie Luere per successionem rei alterius in locum poenae debitae. p. 281Thence piaculum used for an Expiatory Sacrifice, and expiare is to appease by such a Sacrifice, so Cereris numen expiare is used in Cicero; filium expiare in Livy. So that all these Sacrifices among them were supposed still to pertain to the atoning the Deity, and obtaining a remission of sins committed by them. And from hence (because where there was a greater equality and nearness, there might be the greater efficacy of the Sacrifice for expiation) came the custom of sacrificing men, which Grotius at large shews to have almost universally obtained before the coming of Christ. We are now to consider what Crellius answers to this; the substance of which lies in these two things. 1. He denies not but that foreign and foreign do in their proper use in the Greek Tongue signifie the purging of guilt, Crell. c. 10. sect. 23, & 24.and the aversion of the wrath of God and punishment, but that those and such other words are attributed to Sacrifices, because those were supposed to be the effects of them among the Heathen; but the attributing such effects to them, did arise from their superstition, whereby greater things were attributed to Sacrifices, than God would have given to them, either before p. 282or under the Law. Ita que quod ad voces Graecas foreign & foreign attinet, quibus in hoc argumento non semel utitur D. scriptor ad Heb. eae ad Christi Sacrificium & Sacerdoti… functionem relatae eo etiam sensu usurpantur quem Graeca lingua receperat, h…e. de expurgatione reatus & aversione irae numinis aut paenae. Crell. c. 10. p. 499.2. He denies not, but that those words, foreign and foreign, being used by the Author to the Hebrews more than once with respect to the Sacrifices and Priesthood of Christ, were taken in the same sense in which they are used in the Greek Tongue, viz. For the purgi…g of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and the punishment consequent upon it: But all that he contends for is, That there is a difference in the manner of effecting it, which he acknowledges the words themselves do not imply; and the reasons he gives for it are, That the other were proper, but Christ's an improper Sacrifice; and that the other Sacrifices were offered by men to God, but the Sacrifice of Christ was given by God to men, and therefore he must be supposed to be reconciled before. From whence he would at least have other senses of these words joyned together with the former; viz. Either for purging away the filth of sin, or for a declaration of a deliverance from guilt and punishment, in imitation of the Idiom of the Hebrew, in which many words are used in the New Testament. From hence it follows, that Crellius doth yield the main cause, p. 283if it appear, that Christ did offer up an expiatory Sacrifice to God in his death, for then he grants that foreign and foreign being applied to the Sac…fice of Christ, are to be taken for the purging away of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and the punishment of sin. And it is to no purpose to say, that it is not a proper Sacrifice, for if the effects of a proper Sacrifice do belong to it, that proves that it is so; for these words being acknowledged to be applied to the Sacrifice of Christ by the Author to the Hebrews, what could more evince that Christ's was a proper Sacrifice, than that those things are attributed to it, which by the consent of all Nations, are said to belong to proper Sacrifices, and that in the very same sense in which they are used by those who understood them in the most proper sense. And what reason could Crellius have to say, that it was only the superstition of the Heathens, which made them attribute such effects to sacrifices; when himself acknowledges that the very same sense doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ under that notion? and as to the Iews we have already proved that the sense of expiation among them was by vertue of the Law to be taken p. 284in as proper a sense as among the Heathens, for the purging of guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God. And why should Crellius deny that effect of the Sacrifice of Christ as to the atonement of God, because God's love was seen in giving him who was to offer the Sacrifice? since that effect is attributed to those Sacrifices under the Law which God himself appointed to be offered, and shewed his great kindness to the people in the Institution of such a way, whereby their sins might be expiated, and they delivered from the punishment of them. But of the consistency of these two, I shall speak more afterwards, in the effect of the Sacrifices as relating to Persons.

Expiation attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it was to other Sacrifices.VI. We now come to consider in what sense the expiation of sins is in Scripture attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ, and therein I shall prove these two things. 1. That the Expiation is attributed to the Sacrifice of Christ in the same sense that it is attributed to other Sacrifices, and as the words in themselves do signifie. 2. That what is so attributed doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ in his death, antecedent to his entrance into Heaven. 1. That the expiation is to be taken in a proper sense, when it is attributed to the p. 285Sacrifice of Christ. Crellius tells us, The controversie is not about the thing, Crell. c. 10. sect. 24.viz. whether expiation in the sense we take it in for purging away guilt, and aversion of the wrath of God, doth belong to the Sacrifice of Christ, for he acknowledges it doth, but all the question is about the manner of it: which in the next Section he thus explains: There are three senses in which Christ may be said to expiate sins; either by begetting Faith in us, whereby we are drawn off from the practice of sin, in which sense, he saith, it is a remoter antecedent to it; or as it relates to the expiation by actual deliverance from punishment, so he saith, it is an immediate antecedent to it: or as he declares that they are expiated, but this, he saith, doth not so properly relate to Christ as a Sacrifice, but as a Priest. But never a one of these senses comes near to that which Crellius grants to be the proper importance of foreign and foreign, as applied to a Sacrifice, viz. the purging away guilt, and the aversion of the wrath of God, and punishment, not any way, but by the means of the Sacrifice offered. For in the Legal Sacrifices nothing can be more plain than that the expiation was to be by the Sacrifice offered for Atonement: supposing then p. 286that in some other way (which could be by no means proper to those Sacrifices) Christ may be said to expiate sins, what doth this prove that there was an expiation belonging to his Sacrifice agreeable to the Sacrifices of old? But as I urged before in the case of Christ's being High Priest, that by their assertions the Iews might utterly deny the force of any argument used by the Author to the Hebrews to prove it: so I say as to the expiation by Christ's Sacrifice, that it hath no analogy or correspondency at all with any Sacrifice that was ever offered for the expiation of sins. For by that they always understood something which was immediately offered to God for that end, upon which they obtain'd remission of sins; but here is nothing answerable to it in their sense of Christ's Sacrifice; for here is no Oblation at all made unto God for this end; all the efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ, in order to expiation doth wholly and immediately respect us; so that if it be a proper Sacrifice to any, it must be a Sacrifice to us, and not to God: for a Sacrifice is always said to be made to him whom it doth immediately respect; but Christ in the planting Faith, in actual p. 287deliverance, in declaring to us this deliverance, doth wholly respect us, and therefore his Sacrifice must be made to men, and not to God. Which is in it self a gross absurdity, and repugnant to the nature and design of Sacrifices from the first institution of them; which were always esteemed such immediate parts of divine worship, that they ought to respect none else but God, as the object to which they were directed, though for the benefit and advantage of mankind. As well then might Christ be said to pray for us, and by that no more be meant but that he doth teach us to understand our duty; as be made an expiatory Sacrifice for us, and all the effect of it only respect us and not God. And this is so far from adding to the perfection of Christ's Sacrifice above the Legal (which is the thing pleaded by Crellius) that it destroys the very nature of a Sacrifice, Crell. c. 10. sect. 26.if such a way of expiation be attributed to it (which though conceived to be more excellent in it self) yet is wholly incongruous to the end and design of a Sacrifice for Expiation. And the excellency of the manner of expiation ought to be in the same kind, and not quite of another nature; for, will any one say, p. 288that a General of an Army hath a more excellent conduct that all that went before him, because he can make finer speeches; or that the Assomanaean Family discharg'd the Office of Priesthood best, because they had a greater power over the people; or that Nero was the most excellent Emperour of Rome because he excelled the rest in Musick and Poetry: by which we see that to assert an excellency of one above another, we must not go to another kind, but shew its excellency in that wherein the comparison lies: So that this doth not prove the excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ, because he hath a greater power to perswade, deliver and govern, than any Sacrifice under the Law; for these are things quite of another nature from the consideration of a Sacrifice: But therein the excellency of a Sacrifice is to be demonstrated, that it excells all other in the proper end and design of a Sacrifice, i. e. if it be more effectual towards God for obtaining the expiation of sin; which was always thought to be the proper end of all Sacrifices for expiation. Although then Christ may be allowed to excel all other Sacrifices in all imaginable respects but that which is the proper intention of a p. 289Sacrifice; it may prove far greater excellency in Christ, but it doth withall prove a greater imperfection in his Sacrifice, if it fail in that which is the proper end of it. So that if we should grant that the expiation attributed to Christ's Sacrifice signified no more than reclaiming men from their sins, or their deliverance by his power, or a declaration of God's decree to pardon, this may prove that there are better arguments to believe the remission of our sins now under the Gospel; but they do not in the least prove that Christ is to be consider'd as a Sacrifice; much less that he doth far excell in the notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice all those which were offered up to God for that end under the Law.

VII.Expiation by Christ not meerly declarative. But we must now further consider, whether this be all attributed to Christ in order to expiation in Scripture; i. e. Whether those words which of themselves do imply the aversion of the wrath of God, when used concerning other Sacrifices, when applied to the Sacrifice of Christ, do only imply the begetting faith in us, or a declaration of pardon. The words which are used to this purpose, are foreign, which are all applied to the blood p. 290of Christ, and the dispute is, whether they signifie no more but a declaration of pardon, or a means to beget faith in us. The first words foreign and foreign Crellius acknowledgeth do frequently signifie deliverance from guilt and punishment;Crell cap. 10 sect. 28 p 506. but, he saith, they may likewise signifie a declaration of that deliverance, as decreed by God, or a purging from the sins themselves, or from the custom of sinning. So that by Crellius his own confession, the sense we contend for is most proper and usual, the other are more remote, and only possible; why then should we forsake the former sense, which doth most perfectly agree to the nature of a Sacrifice, which the other senses have no such relation to, as that hath? For these being the words made use of in the New Testament, to imply the force and efficacy of a Sacrifice, why should they not be understood in the same sense which the Hebrew words are taken in, when they are applied to the Sacrifices under the Law? We are not enquiring into all possible senses of words, but into the most natural and agreeable to the scope of them that use them: and that we shall make it appear to be the same, we plead for in the places in dispute between us; p. 291as, 1 John 1.7. The blood of Iesus Christ his Son, foreign, purgeth us from all sin, Heb. 9.13, 14. If the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, foreign, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works, foreign? Heb. 1.3. foreign, when he had by himself purged our sins. So foreign and foreign are used with a respect to the blood of Christ, Heb. 10.22. Apocalyp. 1.5. And because remission of sin was looked on as the consequent of expiation by Sacrifice under the Law; therefore that is likewise attributed to the blood of Christ, Matth. 26.28. This is the blood of the New Testament which was shed for many, foreign, for the remission of sins, Eph. 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, and to the same purpose, Coloss. 1.14. And from hence we are said to be justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. and Christ is said to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. The substance of all that Crellius replies to these places is,Crell. c. 10. sect. 28. That p. 292those words which do properly signifie the thing it self, may very conveniently be taken only for the declaration of it, when the performance of the thing doth follow by vertue of that declaration: which then happens, when the declaration is made of the thing decreed by another, and that in the name and by the command of him who did decree it. And in this sense, Christ by his blood may be said to deliver us from the punishment of our sins, by declaring or testifying to us the will and decree of God for that purpose. But this answer is by no means sufficient, upon these considerations; 1. Because it doth not reach the proper and natural sense of the words, as Crellius himself confesseth; and yet he assigns no reason at all, why we ought to depart from it, unless the bare possibility of another meaning be sufficient. But how had it been possible for the efficacy of the blood of Christ for purging away the guilt of our sins, to have been expressed in clearer and plainer terms than these, which are acknowledged of themselves to signifie as much as we assert? If the most proper expressions for this purpose, are not of force enough to perswade our Adversaries, none else could ever do it: so that it had been impossible p. 293for our Doctrine to have been delivered in such terms, but they would have found out ways to evade the meaning of them. It seems very strange, that so great an efficacy should not only once or twice, but so frequently be attributed to the blood of Christ for expiation of sin, if nothing else were meant by it, but that Christ by his death did only declare that God was willing to pardon sin? If there were danger in understanding the words in their proper sense, why are they so frequently used to this purpose? why are there no other places of Scripture that might help to undeceive us, and tell us plainly, that Christ dyed only to declare his Father's will? but what ever other words might signifie, this was the only true meaning of them. But what miserable shifts are these, when men are forced to put off such Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine, only by saying that they may be otherwise understood? which destroys all kind of certainty in words; which by reason of the various use of them, may be interpreted to so many several senses, that if this liberty be allowed, upon no other pretence, but that another meaning is possible, men will never agree about p. 294the intention of any person in speaking. For upon the same reason, if it had been said, That Christ declared by his death God's readiness to pardon, it might have been interpreted, That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of God's readiness to pardon, because it was the consideration upon which God would do it: So that if the words had been as express for them, as they are now against them, according to their way of answering places, they would have been reconcileable to our opinion. 2. The Scripture in these expressions, doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ; but if all that were meant by it were no more, than the declaring God's will to pardon, this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it. For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ, and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine, which concerned remission of sins as well as any other: but how absurd would it have been to say, that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin, that through Christ healing the sick, raising the dead, &c. we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, which are attributed to the blood of p. 295Christ? but if no other respect, than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins, they were equally applicable to one as to the other. Besides, if this had been all intended in these expressions, they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ; nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins, which was declared by it, than that very thing by which it was declared, if no more were intended by it: For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons, by such severities used towards the most Innocent! Who could believe, That God should declare his willingness to pardon others, by the death of his own Son; unless that death of his be considered as the meritorious cause for procuring it? And in that sense we acknowledge, That the death of Christ was a declaration of God's will and decree to pardon, but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine (for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin, as well as the blood of Christ) but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon. And so as the acceptance p. 296of the condition required, or the price paid, may be said to declare or manifest, the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive: So God's acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes, may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account. But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering; but to the act of God in accepting: and it can be no other ways known, than God's acceptance is known; which was not by the Sufferings, but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon, doth properly belong to that: and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant, by purging of sin by the blood of Christ, it had been very incongruously applied to that, but most properly to his Resurrection. But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God; and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ, which cannot be said properly to do it; nothing can be more plain, than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense; viz. That Expiation of sin, which doth belong to p. 297the death of Christ, as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

VIII. But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subter…uge,The death of Christ not taken Metonymically for all the consequents of it. (for therein lies their great art, in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies, than to overcome them.) For being sensible, that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them, they seldom, and but very weakly assault: but shew all their subtlety in avoiding by all imaginable arts, the force of what is brought against them. And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ, when no other answer will serve turn, then they tell us, That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death;Crell c. 1. sect. 103. sect. 119. c. 10. sect 45. p. 527. viz. His Resurrection, Exaltation, and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father. But how is it possible to convince those, who by death, can understand life ▪ by sufferings, can mean glory; and by the shedding of blood, sitting at the right hand of God? And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations, will appear by these considerations; 1. Because the effect of Expiation of our sins, is attributed to the p. 298death of Christ, as distinct from his Resurrection; viz. Our reconciliation with God, Rom. 5.10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of h… Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. To which Crellius answers, That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone, Crell. c 1. sect. 112.or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it; but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening. But nothing can be more evident to any one, who considers the design of the Apostles discourse, than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ:Rom 5.6.Rom 5:6 for therefore it is said, that Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: 7.but God commendeth his love towards us, 8.in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9.Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved through him; upon which those words follow,10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, &c. The Reconciliation here mentioned, is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense, that it is mentioned before; but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order p. 299to something farther; but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ; of God, in sending his Son; of Christ, in laying down his life for sinners, in order to their being justified by his blood. But where is it that St. Paul saith, that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins, but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he would expiate sins? what makes him attribute so much to the death of Christ, if all the benefits we enjoy depend upon the consequences of it; and no otherwise upon that, than meerly as a preparation for it? what peculiar emphasis were there in Christ's dying for sinners, and for the ungodly; unless his death had a particular relation to the expiation of their sins? Why are men said to be justified by his blood, and not much rather by his glorious Resurrection, if the blood of Christ be only considered as antecedent to the other? And that would have been the great demonstration of the love of God which had the most immediate influence upon our advantage: which could not have been the death in this sense, but the life and glory of Christ. But nothing can be more absurd p. 300than what Crellius would have to be the meaning of this place, viz. that the Apostle doth not speak of the proper force of the death of Christ distinct from his life; but that two things are opposed to each other for the effecting of one of which the death of Christ did intervene, but it should not intervene for the other; viz. it did intervene for our reconciliation, but it should not for our life. For did not the death of Christ equally intervene for our life as for our reconciliation? was not our eternal deliverance the great thing designed by Christ, and our reconciliation in order to that end? what opposition then can be imagined, that it should be necessary for the death of Christ to intervene in order to the one than in order to the other? But he means, that the death of Christ should not intervene any more; what need that, when it is acknowledged by themselves, that Christ died only for this end before, that he might have power to bestow eternal life on them that obey him? But the main force of the Apostles argument lies in the comparison between the death of Christ having respect to us as enemies in order to reconciliation, and the life of Christ to us considered as reconciled; so that if p. 301he had so much kindness for enemies, to die for their reconciliation, we may much more presume that he now living in Heaven will accomplish the end of that reconciliation, in the eternal salvation of them that obey him. By which it is apparent that he speaks of the death of Christ, in a notion proper to it self, having influence upon our reconciliation; and doth not consider it Metonymically as comprehending in it, the consequents of it.

IX. 2.Expiation attributed to Christ antecedently to his entrance into heaven. Because the expiation of sins is attributed to Christ antecedently to the great consequents of his death, viz. his sitting at the right hand of God, Heb. 1.3. When he had by himself purged our sins, sate down on the right hand of his Majesty on high, Heb. 9.12. But by his own blood he entred in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. To these places Crellius gives a double answer. 1.Crell. c. 10. sect. 50. That indefinite particles (foreign and foreign) being joyned with Verbs of the preterperfect tense do not always require that the action expressed by them, should precede that which is designed in the Verbs to which they are joyned; but they have sometimes the force of particles of the present or imperfect p. 302tense; which sometimes happens in particles of the preterperfect tense, as Matth. 10.5. foreign, so foreign; and several other instances produced by him: according to which manner of interpretation the sense he puts upon those words, Heb. 9.12. is Christ by the shedding of his blood entred into the Holy of Holies, and in so doing he found eternal redemption, or the expiation of sins. But not to dispute with Crellius concerning the importance of the Aorist being joyned with a Verb of the preterperfect tense, which in all reason and common acceptation doth imply the action past by him who writes the words antecedent to his writing of it, as is plain in the instances produced by Crellius; but according to his sense of Christ's expiation of sin, it was yet to come after Christ's entrance into Heaven, and so it should have been more properly foreign than foreign; not I say to insist upon that, the Apostle manifests, that he had a respect to the death of Christ in the obtaining this eternal redemption, by his following discourse: for v. 14. he compares the blood of Christ in point of efficacy for expiation of sin, with the blood of the Legal Sacrifices: p. 303whereas if the expiation meant by him had been found by Christ's Oblation of himself in Heaven, he would have compared Christ's entrance into Heaven in order to it, with the entrance of the High-Priest into the Holy of Holies, and his argument had run thus. For if the High-Priest under the Law did expiate sins by entring into the Holy of Holies; How much more shall the Son of God entring into Heaven expiate the sins of Mankind? but we see the Apostle had no sooner mention'd the redemption obtained for us; but he presently speaks of the efficacy of the blood of Christ in order to it, and as plainly asserts the same, v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first Testament, they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Why doth the Apostle here speak of the foreign, the expiation of sins by the means of death; if he had so lately asserted before that the redemption or expiation was found not by his death, but by his entrance into Heaven? and withal the Apostle here doth not speak of such a kind of expiation as wholly respects the p. 304future, but of sins that were under the first Testament, not barely such as could not be expiated by vertue of it, but such as were committed during the time of it, although the Levitical Law allowed no expiation for them. And to confirm this sense, the Apostle doth not go on to prove the necessity of Christ's entrance into Heaven; but of his dying, v. 16, 17, 18. But granting that he doth allude to the High Priest's entring into the Holy of Holies, yet that was but the representation of a Sacrifice already offer'd, and he could not be said to find expiation by his entrance; but that was already found by the blood of the Sacrifice, and his entrance was only to accomplish the end for which the blood was offer'd up in Sacrifice. And the benefit which came to men is attributed to the Sacrifice, and not to the sprinkling of blood before the Mercy-seat: and whatever effect was consequent upon his entrance into the Sanctuary, was by vertue of the blood which he carried in with him, and was before shed at the Altar. Neither can it with any reason be said, that if the redemption were obtained by the blood of Christ, there could be no need of his entrance into Heaven; p. 305since we do not make the Priesthood of Christ to expire at his death; but that he is in Heaven a merciful High-Priest in negotiating the affairs of his People with God, and there ever lives to make intercession for them.

X. Crellius answers, That granting the Aorist being put before the Verb, No distinction in Scripture of the effects of Christ's entrance into Heaven from his sitting at the right hand of God.foreign should imply such an action which was antecedent to Christ's sitting at the right hand of God, yet it is not there said, that the expiation of sins was made before Christ's entrance into Heaven; for those, saith he, are to be considered as two different things; for a Prince first enters into his Palace, before he sits upon his throne. And therefore, saith he, Christ may be said to have made expiation of sins, Crell. c. 10. sect. 50. p. 537.before he sate down at the right hand of his Father, not that it was done by his death, but by his entrance into Heaven, and offering himself to God there, by which means he obtained his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and thereby the full Power of remission of sins, and giving eternal life. To which I answer, 1. That the Scripture never makes such a distinction between Christ's entrance into Heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God; which latter implying no more but the glorious p. 306state of Christ in Heaven, his entrance into Heaven doth imply it: For therefore God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour: and the reason of the power and authority given him in Heaven is no where attributed to his entrance into it as the means of it; but our Saviour before that tells us,Matth. 28. 18.Matt 28:18 that all power and authority was committed to him; and his very entrance into Heaven was a part of his glory; and given him in consideration of his sufferings; as the Apostle plainly asserts;Phil. 2 8, 9.Phil 2:8Phil 2:9 and he became obedient to death, even the death of the Cross, wherefore God hath highly exalted him, &c. There can be then no imaginable reason to make the entrance of Christ into Heaven, and presenting himself to God there, a condition or means of obtaining that power and authority which is implyed in his sitting at the right hand of God. 2. Supposing, we should look on these as distinct, there is as little reason to attribute the expiation of sin to his entrance, considered as distinct from the other: For the expiation of sins in Heaven being by Crellius himself confessed to be by the exercise of Christ's power, and this being only the means to that power, how could Christ expiate p. 307sins by that power which he had not? But of this I have spoken before, and shewed that in no sense allowed by themselves the expiation of sins can be attributed to the entrance of Christ into Heaven as distinct from his sitting at the right hand of God. Thus much may suffice to prove, that those effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice, which do respect the sins committed, do properly agree to the death of Christ.

XI.Of the Atonement made by Christ's death. I now come to that which respects the person, considered as obnoxious to the wrath of God by reason of his sins; and so the effect of an Expiatory Sacrifice is Atonement and Reconciliation. By the wrath of God, I mean, the reason which God hath from the holiness and justice of his nature, to punish sin in those who commit it: by the means of Atonement and Reconciliation, I mean, that in consideration of which, God is willing to release the sinner from the obligation to punishment he lies under by the Law of God, and to receive him into favour upon the terms which are declared by the Doctrine of Christ. And that the death of Christ was such a means of Atonement and Reconciliation for us, I shall prove by those places of p. 308Scripture which speak of it. But Crellius would seem to acknowledge,Crell. c. 7. sect. 3. That if Grotius seem to contend for no more, than that Christ did avert that wrath of God which men had deserved by their sins, they would willingly yield him all that he pleads for: but then he adds, That this deliverance from the wrath to come, is not by the death, but by the power of Christ. So that the question is, Whether the death of Christ were the means of Atonement and Reconciliation between God and us? and yet Crellius would seem willing to yield too, that the death of Christ may be said to avert the wrath of God from us, as it was a condition in order to it; for in that sence it had no more influence upon it than his birth had: but we have already seen, that the Scripture attributes much more to the death and blood of Christ, in order to the expiation of sin. We do not deny, that the death of Christ may be called a condition, as the performance of any thing in order to an end, may be called the condition upon which that thing is to be obtained; but we say, that it is not a bare condition, but such a one as implies a consideration, upon which the thing is obtained, being such as answers the end of him that grants p. 309it: by which means it doth propitiate or atone him, who had before just reason to punish, but is now willing to forgive and be reconciled to them, who have so highly offended him. And in this sense we assert, that Christ is said to be foreign, a propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2.2.—4.10. which we take in the same sense that foreign, is taken for the Sin-offering for atonement, Ezek. 44.27. foreign, they shall offer a sin-offering; for so foreign there signifies and in the same sense foreign is taken, Ezek. 45.19. and the Ram for Atonement is called foreign, Numb. 5.8. And thence the High-Priest when he made an Atonement, is said foreign, 2 Maccab. 3.33. which is of the greater consequence to us, because Crellius would not have the sense either of foreign or foreign,Crell. 7. sect. 10. to be taken from the common use of the word in the Greek Tongue; but from that which some call the Hellenistical use of it; viz. That which is used in the Greek of the New Testament, out of the LXX. and the Apocryphal Greek; in both which we have found the word foreign in a sense fully correspondent to what we plead for. But he yet urges, and takes a great deal of pains to prove, that foreign and foreign p. 310do not always signifie to be appeased by another, but sometimes signifies to be propitious and merciful in pardoning; and sometimes to expiate, and then signifies the same with foreign and foreign: which if it be granted, proves nothing against us, having already proved, that those words do signifie the aversion of the wrath of God by a Sacrifice, and that there is no reason to recede from that signification, when they are applied to the blood of Christ. And we do not contend, that when the word foreign or foreign is applied to him that doth forgive, it doth imply appeasing; but the effect of it, which is pardoning; but that which we assert, is, that when it is applied to a third person, or a thing made use of in order to forgiveness, then we say it signifies the propitiating him that was justly displeased: so as by what was done or suffered for that end, he is willing to pardon what he had just reason to punish. So Moses is said, to make Atonement for the people by his prayers, foreign, Exod. 34.14. and we may see Verse 11. how much God was displeased before. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people? and p. 311Verse 12. Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people, and then it is said, Verse 14. The Lord was atoned for the evil which he thought to do unto his people. I would therefore willingly know, why Moses might not here properly be said, foreign, as it is said foreign, and therefore since it is so very often said in the Levitical Law, foreign and foreign, as foreign, and the accusative case scarce ever put but in two cases; (viz. When these words are applied to inanimate things, as the Altar, &c. or when to God himself, implying forgiveness) what reason can we assign more probable for this different construction, than that when foreign is used, the verb hath a respect to the offended party as the accusative understood? as Christ is said in the places mentioned to be foreign, which ought in reason to be understood as those words after Moses his intercession, foreign. But Crellius asks, Why then do we never read once concerning the Priest, that he did foreign or foreign, but we read that he did foreign p. 312foreign, and God is said, foreign. To this I answer, 1. That the reason why the person propitiated, is not expressed, is, because it was so much taken for granted, that the whole Institution of Sacrifices did immediately respect God, and therefore there was no danger of mistaking, concerning the person who was to be atoned. 2. I wonder Crellius can himself produce no instance where foreign is used with respect to the Sacrifices, and the persons whose offences are remitted by the Atonement; but where foreign hath a relation to that, it is still joyned with a Preposition relating either to the person or to the offences; if no more were understood when it is so used, than when God himself is said to do it, why is not the phrase foreign, as well said of the Priest, as it is of God? From whence Grotius his sense of Heb. 2.17. foreign for foreign, is far more agreeable to the use of the phrase in the Old Testament, than that which Crellius would put upon it. Therefore since the foreign is attributed to Christ, we ought to take it in the sense proper to a Propitiatory p. 313Sacrifice: so it is said by Moses, where God is left out, but is necessarily understood, after the people had provoked God by their Idolatry; Ye have sinned a great sin: And now I will go up unto the Lord, foreign, That I may make an Atonement for your sin: What way could Moses be said to make this Atonement, but by propitiating God; yet his name is not there expressed, but necessarily understood. So foreign is used in the most proper sense for appeasing the anger of a person, Gen. 32.20. and foreign, 2 Sam. 21.3. which places have been already insisted on, in the signification of the word foreign. And that those places wherein Christ is said to be a propitiation for our sins, are capable of no other sense, will appear from the consideration of Christ, as a middle person between God and us; and therefore his being foreign, cannot be parallel with that phrase, where God himself is said, foreign, for Christ is here considered as interposing between God and us, as Moses and the Priests under the Law did between God and the people, in order to the averting his wrath from them. And when one doth thus interpose in p. 314order to the Atonement of the offended party, something is always supposed to be done or suffered by him, as the means of that Atonement. As Iacob supposed the present he made to his Brother would propitiate him; and David appeased the Gibeonites by the death of Saul's Sons, both which are said foreign. So the shedding of the blood of Sacrifices before and under the Law, was the means of atoning God for the sins they committed. What reason can there be then why so receiv'd a sense of Atonement, both among the Iews, and all other Nations at that time when these words were written, must be forsaken; and any other sense be embraced, which neither agrees with the propriety of the expression, nor with so many other places of Scripture, which make the blood of Christ to be a Sacrifice for the Expiation of sin?

XII. Neither is it only our Atonement,Of Reconciliation by Christ's death. but our Reconciliation is attributed to Christ too, with a respect to his Death and Sufferings. As in the place before insisted on.Rom. 5 10.Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; and more largely in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 Cor. 18, 19.21And all things are of God, who hath reconciled p. 315us to himself by Iesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation: To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And to the Ephesians, Eph. 2.16.Eph 2:16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross, having slain the enmity thereby. To the same purpose to the Colossians, Col. 1.20, 21, 22.Col 1:20Col 1:21Col 1:22And having made peace through the blood of his Cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself, by him I say whether they be things in Heaven or in Earth; and you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death. Two things the substance of Crellius his answer may be reduced to concerning these places. 1.Crell. c. 7. sect. 15, 16, 17, 18, &c. That it is no where said that God was reconciled to us, but that we are reconciled to God, and therefore this reconciliation doth not imply any averting of the anger of God. 2. That none of these places do assert any reconciliation with God antecedent to our conversion, and so that the Reconciliation mention'd implies only the p. 316laying aside our enmity to God by our sins. I begin with the first of these, concerning which we are to consider not barely the phrases used in Scripture, but what the nature of the thing implies; as to which a difference being supposed between God and man on the account of sin, no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual. For did man only fall out with God, and had not God just reason to be displeased with men for their Apostasie from him? If not, what made h…m so severely punish the first sin that ever was committed by man? what made him punish the old World for their impieties by a deluge? what made him leave such Monuments of his anger against the sins of the World in succeeding Ages? what made him add such severe sanctions to the Laws he made to the people of the Iews? what made the most upright among them so vehemently to deprecate his wrath and displeasure upon the sense of their sins?Psal. 6.1.38.1. Psal. 5.5.7.11.11.5. Levit. 26.30.Ps 6:1Ps 6:38Ps 5:5Ps 5:7Ps 5:11Lev 26:30 what makes him declare not only his hatred of the sins of men, but of the persons of those who commit them; so far as to express the greatest abhorrency of them? Nay, what makes our Adversaries themselves to say,Crell de Deo & Attrib. l 1. c. 30. that impiety is in its own nature hateful to p. 317God, and stirs him up to anger against all who commit it? what means, I say, all this, if God be not angry with men on the account of sin? Well then; supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins, shall this displeasure always continue or not? if it always continues, men must certainly suffer the desert of their sins; if it doth not always continue, then God may be said to be reconciled in the same sense that an offended party is capable of being reconciled to him who hath provoked him. Now there are two ways whereby a party justly offended may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him. First, when he is not only willing to admit of terms of agreement, but doth declare his acceptance of the mediation of a third person, and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it, that he appoints this to be published to the World to assure the offender, that if the breach continues, the fault wholly lies upon himself. The second is, when the offender doth accept of the terms of agreement offered, and submits himself to him whom he hath provoked, and is upon that received into favour. And these two we assert p. 318must necessarily be distinguished in the reconciliation between God and us. For upon the death and sufferings of Christ, God declares to the World he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffered in order to the reconciliation between himself and us, that he now publishes remission of sins to the World upon those terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own doctrine, and the Apostles he sent to preach it: But because remission of sins doth not immediately follow upon the death of Christ, without supposition of any act on our part, therefore the state of favour doth commence from the performance of the conditions which are required from us. So that upon the death of Christ God declaring his acceptance of Christ's mediation, and that the obstacle did not lie upon his part; therefore those Messengers who were sent abroad into the world to perswade men to accept of these terms of agreeement, do insist most upon that which was the remaining obstacle, viz. the sins of Mankind, that men by laying aside them, would be now reconciled to God, since there was nothing to hinder this reconciliation, their obstinacy in sin excepted. Which may be a very p. 319reasonable account why we read more frequently in the Writings of the Apostles, of mens duty in being reconciled to God; the other being supposed by them as the foundation of their preaching to the world, and is insisted on by them upon that account, as is clear in that place to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 5.19▪ 20.2 Cor 5:192 Cor 5:20That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses, and hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation; and therefore adds, Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God: And least these words should seem dubious, he declares that the reconciliation in Christ was distinct from that reconciliation he perswades them to; for the reconciliation in Christ he supposeth past, v. 18. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ, and v. 21. he shews us how this Reconciliation was wrought: For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Crell. c. 1. sect. 118. cap. 7. sect. 24.Crellius here finds it necessary to acknowledge a twofold Reconciliation, but hopes to escape the force of this place by a rare distinction of the Reconciliation p. 320as preached by Christ, and by his Apostles; and so God's having reconciled the world to himself by Iesus Christ is nothing else but Christ's preaching the Gospel himself, who afterwards committed that Office to his Apostles. But if such shifts as these will serve to baffle mens understandings, both they were made, and the Scripture were written to very little purpose; for if this had been all the Apostle had meant, that Christ preached the same Doctrine of Reconciliation before them, what mighty matter had this been to have solemnly told the World, that Christ's Apostles preached no other Doctrine, but what their Master had preached before? especially if no more were meant by it, but that men should leave their sins, and be reconciled to God. But besides, why is the Ministry of Reconciliation, then attributed only to the Apostles, and not to Christ, which ought in the first place to have been given to him, since the Apostles did only receive it from him? Why is that Ministry of Reconciliation said to be, viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself? was this all the subject of the Apostles preaching, to tell the World, that Christ perswaded men to p. 321leave off their sins? how comes God to reconcile the World to himself by the preaching of Christ, since Christ himself saith, he was not sent to preach to the world; but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Was the World reconciled to God by the preaching of Christ, before they had ever heard of him? Why is God said not to impute to men their trespasses by the preaching of Christ, rather than his Apostles; if the not imputing were no more than declaring God's readiness to pardon; which was equally done by the Apostles as by Christ himself? Lastly, what force or dependance is there in the last words, For he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, &c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christ's preaching? How was he made sin more than the Apostles, if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him? and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles, as well as in Christ, if no more be meant, but being perswaded to be righteous, by the Doctrine delivered to them?

In the two latter places, Eph. 2.16. Coloss. 1.20. &c. it is plain, that a twofold p. 322reconciliation is likewise mentioned, the one of the Iews and Gentiles to one another, the other of both of them to God. For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus, who would have foreign not to be joyned with the Verb, foreign, but to stand by it self, and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Iews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God. Crell. c 7 sect. 30.And Crellius, who stands out at nothing, hopes to bring off Socinus here too; by saying, that it is very common, for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb; but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions; the shorter answer had been to have produced one place where foreign ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party; or where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation, did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconcil…ation was to be made. As for that obj…ction concerning things in Heaven being reconciled: that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of M…n, …u… that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of Men to God, become p. 323one body under Christ, and are gathered together in him, as the Apostle expresseth it, Eph. 1.10.

XIII. 1. Having thus far proved,Objections answered. that the effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ, nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections, which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries. The first is, That God was reconciled before he sent his Son, and therefore Christ could not die to reconcile God to us. The second is, That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us, is inconsistent with the freeness of God's grace in the remission of sins: Both which will admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse. To the first I answer, That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God, which was discovered in sending his Son into the world; we do not say, That God hated mankind so mu…h on the account of sin, that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them, which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of God's love, in sending Christ into the world; but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love, that nothwithstanding p. 324all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven, he should be pleased to send his own Son to die for sinners, that they might be reconciled to him. And herein was the great love of God manifested, that while we were enemies and sinners, Christ died for us, and that for this end, that we might be reconciled to God by his death. And therefore surely, not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then. But it were worth the while, to understand what it is our Adversaries mean, when they say, God was reconciled when he sent his Son, and therefore he could not die to reconcile God to us. Either they mean, that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his Son, or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him: if he only decreed to be reconciled, that was not at all inconsistent with Christ's dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree: if they mean, he was actually reconciled, then there was no need for Christ to die to reconcile God and us; but withal, actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin; and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came, there could be no need of his coming at all, and sins would have p. 325been pardoned before committed; if they were not pardoned, notwithstanding that love of God, then it can imply no more, but that God was willing to be reconciled. If therefore the not-remission of sins were consistent with that love of God, by which he sent Christ into the world, then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death. So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God, with not presently pardoning the sins of the world, as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ, which are asserted by us.

XIV. To the other Obejction,The freeness of Grace asserted in Scripture, destroys not satisfaction. Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of God's Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction. I answer, Either God's Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions, or not: If it be so free, as to exclude all conditions, then the highest Antinomianism is the tru…st Doctrine; for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace, which admits of no conditions at all. If our Adversaries say, That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with conditions required on our part, Why shall it not admit of conditions on God's part? especially, when the condition required, tends so p. 326highly to the end of God's governing the world, in the manifestation of his hatred against sin, and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead, as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins. There are two things to be considered in sin, the dishonour done to God, by the breach of his Laws, and the injury men do to thems…lves by it; now remission of sins, that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it; and that is Free, when the penalty is wholly forgiven, as we assert it is by the Gospel to all penitent sinners: but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honour, and to declare his righteousness to the world, while he is the Iustifier of them that believe? Shall men in case of Defamation, be bound to vindicate themselves, though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander, by our Adversaries own Doctrine? and must it be repugnant to God's Grace, to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, that the world may understand, that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God; but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ, in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, that should be p. 327the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them? But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ, for God freely to pardon sin, than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Iews or Gentiles? who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement; and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins? Nay we find that God himself,Gen. 20.7.Gen 20:7 in the case of Abimelech, appointed Abraham to pray for him, in order to his pardon; And will any one say, this was a derogation to the Grace of God in his pardon?Job 42.7.Job 42:7 Or to the pardon of Iob's Friends, because Iob was appointed to Sacrifice for them? Or to the pardon of the Israelites, because God out of kindness to them, directed them by the Prophets, and appointed the means in order to it? But although God appointed our High-Priest for us, and out of his great love sent him into the world, yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him, but what he freely underwent himself; he gave us Christ, but Christ offered up himself a full, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world.

p. 328Thus, Sir, I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of, concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ; and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things, and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written,

I am, SIR, Your, &c. E. S. Ian. 6. 166….

THE MYSTERIES OF The Christian Faith ASSERTED and VINDICATED: IN A SERMON Preached at S. Laurence-Jewry in London, APRIL the 7th. 1691.

By the Right Reverend Father in GOD, EDWARD Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LONDON, Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1697.