fuit assimilatus, infirmitati et mortalitati obnoxia fuit; nunc vero ab ea in omnem æternitatem libera est. Answ.. 1. These properties of holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, which the apostle ascribes unto our Lord Jesus as our high priest, Heb. vii. 26. as also his offering himself without spot, ch. ix. 14. this man ascribes to Christ as exalted in heaven, in contradistinction to what he was whilst on the earth. For thence he taketh his argument, that he was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, namely, because he was so holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, in heaven. Now, if it doth not hence follow, that he was impure, defiled, guilty, like other sinners whilst he was on the earth, yet it doth undeniably, and that is the matter contended for, that he was not holy, harmless, and undefiled, in the sense here intended by the apostle. How this can be freed from open blasphemy, I am not able to discern. 2. He is not secured by his ensuing distinction, that the Lord Christ was before whilst on the earth perfectly holy as to his manners, but that the epithets here used respect his nature. For not to assign all these properties unto the nature of Christ from the instant of his conception, or to deny them to belong thereto, is no less contrary to the Scripture, and really blasphemous, than to deny him to have been holy with respect to his life and conversation. For he was the Holy Thing that was born of the Virgin, and as he was born of her, by virtue of the miraculous creation and sanctification of his nature in the womb, whereof I have treated elsewhere at large. 3. Here is a supposition included, that all the difference between Christ and us, whilst he was in this world, consisted only in the use of his freedom unto the perfect obedience wherein we fail and come short. That his nature was absolutely holy and impeccable, our's sinful and defiled, is cast out of consideration; and yet to deny this difference between him and us, is no less blasphemous than what we before rejected. 4. Christ in this world was indeed obnoxious to sufferings, and death itself, as having a nature on that account like to his brethren in all things. To suppose that he was obnoxious to infirmity and mortality, because he was not yet holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, is injurious to his person, and derogatory from his love. For it was not from the necessity of his own condition in human nature, that he was exposed to sufferings or to death, but he became so by voluntary condescension for our sakes, Phil. ii. 5-8. We are obnoxious to these things on our own account, he only on our's. 66 5. In the death of Christ, when he shed his blood, he was άμνος αμωμος και ασπίλος, a Lamb without spot and without blemish," 1 Pet. i. 19. as he is said to offer himself, aμor a He was therefore Θεω O," without spot to God," Heb. ix. 14. no less so before and in his death than after. prising, to be put by one professing himself a Christian, to the work of proving the Lord Christ to have been in his entire nature in this world, holy and harmless. 6. He doth not in the least relieve himself from those impieties, by his ensuing discourse on Eph. v. 26, 27. that he "might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word; that he might present it unto himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish." He contends that the making of the church holy and without blemish in this place, concerns its glorified state, because it is therewithal said to be a glorious church. In the same sense therefore, as he affirmeth, is Christ said to be holy when he was glorified, and not before. But he adds herein to the weight and number of his preceding enormities. For in what sense soever the church is said to be made holy, or to be sanctified, whether it be in grace, or as instated in glory, it is so by being washed and cleansed from the spots, stains and filth, which originally it had. But to ascribe such a sanctification or making holy to the Lord Christ, is the highest blasphemy imaginable. We may therefore firmly conclude, with the whole church of God, according to the Scripture, and the nature of the thing itself, that the Lord Christ was a priest, and executed his priestly office whilst he was on the earth, even then when he offered up himself to God, with strong cries and supplications, at his death on the cross. § 13. That which yet remains, as belonging to our present design, is the consideration of the direct and immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or the exercising his mediatory power by virtue of his priestly office. This we have declared before, and proved, namely that it is God himself. Our meaning is, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the high priest of the church, acts on its behalf with God, doing those things which are to be done with him, according to the covenant before explained. As a king and prophet, he acts in the name of God towards us; as a priest, he acts towards God on our behalf. This the whole economy of the Aaronical priesthood doth confirm, and the very nature of the great duties of this office, oblation and intercession, do necessarily infer. Doth Christ offer himself in sacrifice unto God or unto us? Doth he intercede with God or us? It is no small evidence of the desperate cause of our adversaries, that they are forced to put uncouth and horrid senses on these sacerdotal duties, to accommodate them to their sentiments. So after that Smalcius hath told us, that these things were thus expressed in Scripture, ex nimio figurate loquen di studio, so traducing the wisdom and sobriety of the penmen thereof, he adds in the explication of that figurative expression, as he would have it, of Christ's intercession: Cum igitur de Christo dicitur eum pro nobis interpellare, aliud nihil dicitur, quam eum potentia illa sua sibi data, curam nostri gerere. It is not easily conceivable, how a greater violence can be offered to a sacred expression. By such interpretations, it is possible to put an orthodox sense on all the writings of Smalcius. But in the vindication of his exposition of Christ's intercession, he adds, That the power which Christ exerciseth in his care of the church, and all his actings towards it, he received of God, and therefore in the use of it he is said to make intercession for us;' that is, he doth one thing, and is said to do another. What he doth, is not said, namely that he acts his power towards the church; and what he doth not, that he is said to do, namely to make intercession with God for us. The arguments whereby we confirm the truth asserted, have been before declared and confirmed. Wherefore, to put a close to this whole disputation, and to give the reader a specimen of the subtilty and perpetual tergiversation of our adversaries in this cause, wherein also occasion will be administered farther to explain sundry things relating unto this office of Christ, I shall examine strictly the whole discourse of Crellius on this subject, and therein give a peculiar instance of the sophistical ability of these men, in evading the force of arguments and testimonies from the Scrip ture. $14. Grotius proves, that the first actings of Christ as a priest were towards God, from Heb. v. 1. and ch. viii. 3. whereunto Crellius replies, cap. 10. Part 3. p. 474. Postrema hæc verba ita sunt comparata, ut per se Socini sententia non repugnent, Grotium nil juvent. Fatetur enim Socinus quoque et satis clare docet Auctor D. Heb. ii. 17. actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, et sic ejus sacrificium expiatorium esse ex eorum numero que pro homine fiunt apud Deum; ut alia hic deductione cum de Christi sacrificio quæratur, non fuerit opus. De sensu ergo quæritur cum de verbis con stat. Answ. 1. The agreement which he pretends between Grotius and himself in this matter, as to the words of the apostle, is enough with sober men to put an end to the whole controversy. The question is, whether Christ as a high priest did act principally towards God or towards us. Towards God, saith the apostle, and Grotius from him. We are agreed, saith Crellius, about these words, all the question is about their sense. As how? namely, whether they signify that Christ exerciseth this office towards God, or towards us. For this is that which after a long tergiversation he comes to: Pag. 477. Talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat Apostolus quæ circa nos prime versetur, non vero circa Deum. The apostle intimateth plainly, that such is the (sacerdotal) actings of Christ in this matter as is first exercised towards us, and not towards God.' Whatever therefore is otherwise pretended, that question between him and us, is about the words themselves and their truth, and not about their sense and meaning. For if it be true that the Lord Christ, καθισταται ὑπερ ανθρωπων τα προς τον Θε», is ' appointed as a priest for man, or on their behalf, in the things belonging unto God,' or to be done with God, Heb. v. 1. and that in an especial manner, sis to gooPegsiv dagα Ts xai Juolas, ch. viii. 3. to offer gifts and sacrifices to God,' the whole sense is granted which we plead for. If he is not so appointed, if he doth not do so, that is, if he were not ordained to act with God in the behalf of men, if he did not offer sacrifice for them, or for the expiation of their sins, then are not these words true, and it is in vain to contend about the sense of them. 2. I shall only further observe the sophistry of that expression, actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, that action of Christ whereby he is a priest.' For he intends that Christ is only denominated a priest, from some action he doth perform; whereas in truth he performs those actions by virtue of his priesthood, and could not perform them were he not a priest in office. 6 Having laid this foundation, Crellius enters upon a large discourse, wherein he doth nothing but perpetually divert from the argument in hand, and by a multitude of words strive to hide himself from the sense of it. Take him when he supposeth himself out of its reach, and he speaketh plainly. So he doth, Lib. de Caus. Mort. Christi, pag. 7. Cum consideratur Christus ut sacerdos, etsi similitudinem refert ejus qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine præstet, si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes eum talem esse sacerdotem qui Dei nomine aliquid nobis præstet. • When Christ is considered as a priest, although he bears the likeness of one that doth something with God on the behalf of men, yet you look more narrowly into the matter itself, you will find that he is such a priest, who acts towards us in the name of God.' If we may but hold him to this plain declaration of his mind, (which indeed he must keep to, or lose his cause), the vanity and tergiversation that is in all his other evasions and pretences, will be evident. if § 15. But because we have resolved on a particular examination of all that can be pretended in this matter on the behalf of our adversaries, we may consider his plea at large in his own words. 1. Grotius ita verba ea proculdubio intelligit, ac si dictum esset sacrificis moveri Deum, ut hominibus benefaciat, et expiatoriis quidem, ut remissionem peccatorum iis concedere velit. 2. Hoc si in eam sententiam accipiatur, in quam alias Grotius hujusmodi verba in nostro negotio sumere solet, ut significet 3. Deum iratum ac pœnas expeten tem, ita tamen ut non aversetur omnes iræ deponendæ rationes, sacrificiis placari, et ad ignoscendum flecti, 4. non est id de omnibus sacrificiis expiatoriis, etiam proprie dictis admittendum, imo de iis quæ proprie ita appellantur 5. Minus quam de aliis ab homine profectis, præcibus scilicet, pænitentia, animi humilitate, seu cordis ac spiritus contritione. 6. Neque enim sub lege eo pacto Deum movebant sacrificia ab ipso præscripta præsertim semper. Sed cum Deus enim antea decrevisset, se intervenientibus illis sacrificiis delicta et lapsus velle condonare, iis oblatis, 7. vi decreti istius effectus ille apud Deum consequebatur, etiam si is actu non irasceretur, imo id eo potius offerebantur sacrificia, ne, si forte negligerentur, irasceretur, quam ut jam iratus placaretur. Quod si vocem movendi, et cæteras ei similes, eo modo hic accipias, quem nos alibi etiam explicuimus, ut significent conditione præstita apud Deum efficere, ut vi decreti sui effectum hominibus benefaciat, et reatum peccati deleat pænamque avertat, sive per se, ut sub lege, sive per alium ut N. Fœderis tempore, id quod Grotius ait, tum de sacrificis legalibus, tum etiam de morte Christi 8. Quam sacrificium, el quidem expiatorium esse fatemur, licet per se in hoc genere nondum perfectum, verum est. Answ. 1. There was no need at all of this large and ambi-guous repetition of the whole state of the controversy about the nature and use of sacrifices in this place, where the argument concerned only the proper object of Christ's sacerdotal actings. And he knew well enough the mind of Grotius as to the sense of what he asserted; only it was necessary to retreat into this long diversion, to avoid the force of the testimonies produced against him. 2. The sense which we plead for as to the expiation of our sins by Jesus Christ is plain and evident. God was the author and giver of the law and the sanction thereof; the supreme, righteous, holy, rector, governor, and judge of all persons and actions relating thereunto, the dispenser of rewards and punishments according to the sense and sentence of it. Man transgressed this law by sin, and did what lay in him thereby to cast off the government of God. This rendered him obnoxious to the sentence, curse, death, and punishment threatened in the sanction of the law, which God, as the righteous, holy, supreme governor of all, was, on the account of his righteousness, authority and veracity, obliged to execute. This respect of God towards the transgressors of his law, the Scripture represents under the notion and expression of his anger against sin and sinners, which is nothing but the engagement of his justice to punish offenders. On this account God would not, and without the violation of his justice and veracity could not forgive sin, or dismiss sinners unpunished, without an atonement made by an expiatory sacrifice, wherein his justice also was to be satisfied, and his law to be fulfilled.. And this was done by the sacrifice of Christ, according to the tenor and compact between God and him before described. 3. The advantage that |