nomination could or ought thence to be taken, or any name assigned to it. As for the death of Christ, Crellius peremptorily denies it to have been Christ's perfect expiatory sacrifice. And for his offering himself in heaven, he affirms that whatever other appearance may be of it, yet indeed it is wholly conversant about us, and not about God. It is therefore in vain to inquire after reasons and grounds on which Christ may be said to do those things in his sacrifice quæ sunt apud Deum peragenda, when it cannot be truly spoken at all, and is directly denied by them. 4. Let it therefore be observed, that the similitude that was between the sacrifices of the law and that of Christ, was not a bare natural or moral similitude, whence the one of them might be called by the name of the other, that name belonging to the one properly, to the other metaphorically; but whereas there is a generical identity between them, both of them agreeing in the same general nature of being proper sacrifices in their own special kind; the one of them, namely those of the priests under the law, were instituted and ordained to represent the other, or the sacrifice of Christ, whence arose a similitude between them, as there was a real difference on many other accounts. And the relation that was between them, which these men would have to be a similitude, only arose from these three respects. 1. That the sacrifice of Christ was that pattern in heavenly things, according to the idea whereof, all legal sacrifices were appointed to make a representation. That is, God having designed his Son Jesus Christ to be the high priest of his church, and to expiate their sins by the sacrifice of himself, did appoint the legal priesthood and sacrifices, obscurely to delineate that design before its actual accomplishment. And indeed here lies the true difference between us and the Socinians in this matter. For they suppose that God having for certain ends instituted the office of priests and duty of sacrificing in the church of old, some things that were done afterwards, and are yet done by Christ, because of their allusion to, and some kind of likeness with, what was done in and by those institutions, are called by their names. We judge on the other hand, that God originally designing the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that he might represent his purpose therein to be accomplished in the fulness of time, and grant an outward means or pledge to the church of an interest in the nature, efficacy, and benefit thereof, and for no other end, appointed the typical priesthood and sacrifice of the Old Testament, as hath been proved at large before. Wherefore, 2. Seeing they were types appointed of God to set out, teach and prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, whatever was in them that did not arise from the natural and indispensable imperfections of them by whom they were offered, and the nature of the offerings themselves, but was directly of divine institution, was

in the mind and will of God instructive before-hand of the nature and use of the sacrifice of Christ. If therefore those priests offered sacrifice to God, so did Christ; if they made atonement by blood, so did Christ; if those sacrifices consisted in the slaying and oblation on the altar of the victim, so did Christ in his death and blood-shedding; if God were the principal immediate object of their sacerdotal actings, so he was of Christ's. 3. They were by God's ordinance figuratively communicative of the real virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, God appointed them to this end, that the church making use of them in the faith of the promise concerning the future sacrifice of Christ, should through them be made partakers of the benefits thereof, they being means of exhibiting spiritually what they did carnally represent. Crellius thinks, that all sacrifices were only conditions required antecedently to the free pardon of sin, which he calls the pardoning of sin by virtue of God's decree; but that they had no influence to the procuring of the remission of sin; which is in effect, that they did no way make atonement for sin. But then no man living can give an account of their special nature, or why God did institute a condition of that kind, when any duties or acts of obedience of any other sort, would have served to the same end. It is plain, that all expiatory sacrifices did at least make a representation of commutation, satisfaction, pacification of wrath, turning away of evil, the procurement of mercy, reconciliation and atonement; and if they did nothing of this nature, it is hard to find any reason of their institution. Wherefore the similitude invented by Crellius, is of no consideration in this matter, but is only found out on purpose to destroy the true analogy that is between the legal sacrifices and that of Christ. 5. There is indeed, according to the opinion of these men, no similitude between them; for the legal sacrifices did not consist in the representation of the beast sacrificed, much less in any exaltation and power that it had afterwards; but in the slaying and offering of it on the altar, to which there is not the least resemblance in that which they call the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ. 6. The offering of sacrifices coram Dei vultu, before the face of God, is true, but not in his sense; for he confines it to the presence of God in the sanctuary only: whereas that which was done at the altar, was also said to be done before God, and no where else were any sacrifices offered. 7. The use of legal sacrifices here granted by him, is indeed none at all; for the decree of God, that is the free pleasure of God, is made the only cause of the remission of sin, without respect to any procuring cause or means whatever. And if propitiatory or expiatory sacrifices had no influence into the remission of sin, if they made not atonement for it, they were of no use at all. Nor

is there any thing found in the application of these things to Christ and his sacrifice. For, 8. The oblation or sacrifice of Christ was not the same with, nor did consist in his appearance in the presence of God in heaven, but was antecedent thereto. He offered himself, and afterwards appears in the presence of God for us, as is plainly expressed. 9. This oblation of Christ is said to be per sanguinis fusionem, by the shedding of his blood; but how or in what sense? The words are used to keep unto some seeming compliance with the Scripture, wherein our redemption, forgiveness, freedom from wrath, all the effects of the sacrifice of Christ, are frequently and signally ascribed to his bloodshed. But is there any intention to intimate, that the effusion of his blood had any interest or concern in his oblation? We know it had not, according to these men, but only as an antecedent condition to his exaltation, as was his whole life and humiliation. 10. The manner of the expiation of sin by the sacrifice of Christ, here at large described by Crellius, is absurd, dissonant from reason, and.contradictory to the Scripture in itself; and in the manner of its declaration, sophistical. The words are to this purpose: "That Christ as a priest offered himself unto God through the effusion of his blood, to obtain for us mercy, pardon of sin, and deliverance from punishment; but the meaning or sense intended is, that being exalted in heaven after his death, by the power that he hath received from God, he pardons our sins, and delivereth us from the punishment due unto them.' But this is such a way of teaching things, as becometh neither the holy penmen of the Scripture, nor any man of common sobriety. And to increase the fondness of the story, Christ is said to do these things with God, or towards God, when men are the express objects of what he doth; and this in his ensuing discourse he directly asserts and contends for. 1. This is that, it seems, which the Holy Ghost would intimate by these expressions of Christ's being a priest, of his offering himself to God an expiatory sacrifice, of our redemption thereon by his blood in the forgiveness of our sins; namely, "That whatever Christ doth in heaven towards the pardon of sin, or the pardon of sin which he affords us, proceedeth in the first place from the kindness and benignity of God, because he hath given power unto him for that end and purpose.' But if no more be indeed intended in this expression, if the sacrifice of Christ did in no sense procure our redemption or pardon of sin, or deliverance from the punishment due unto it, no man can tell for what end the Holy Ghost should use these expressions. Why he should largely and particularly insist upon them and their explanation for our instruction, seeing the only thing intended by them, namely, that the pardon of our sins proceeds originally from divine benignity and grace, and that the Lord

Christ, as Mediator, hath received all his power from God the
Father, is taught and expressed a thousand times more plainly
and clearly in other places and words, and whereas these things
and expressions signify no such things as those intended, no
man living can divine.
can divine. Let him that can, assign a tolerable
reason why the exercise of the power of Christ in heaven, be-
cause it is given him of God, should be called his offering, sacri-
fice or oblation of himself, as the high priest of the church. All
men freely acknowledge, that whatever power Christ hath as
Mediator to forgive us our sins actually, to free us from the pu-
nishment deserved by them, he received it of God, who gave all
things into his hand, because he laid down his life for his sheep;
but that his priesthood consists in the exercise of this power,
and that the exercise thereof with love and care is his oblation
and sacrifice of himself, being indeed only a consequent thereof,
and the means of the administration of its virtue and efficacy,
is a fond imagination. 12. In the mention of those things
whereby God should at least seem to be moved to grant to us
the pardon and remission of sin, Crellius utterly omits the death
of Christ, reckoning up only his entrance into heaven, his great
desire of our salvation, his access unto God, and sitting at his
right hand; wherein he seems not much to aim at a compliance
with the Scripture, which every where ascribes all these effects
directly and immediately to the death and blood-shedding of
Christ. 13. The sum of what remains of his discourse amounts
to this, 'That although in what Christ did for us, there is an
appearance, as though God upon the consideration of what was
done by him, was moved to pardon sin, and free us from pu-
nishment (which yet exclusively unto his death is not true),
yet indeed there is no such thing intended, but only this is so,
that Christ doth all this by virtue of the power he received from
God, and in his name.' The sum of the whole is, that there is
an appearance of Christ's being a high priest, an appearance of
his offering himself a sacrifice to God for us, an appearance of his
acting with God on our behalf, an appearance of his procuring
redemption and pardon of sins for us; but in truth and really
there is nothing intended, but that he hath received power from
God after his humiliation to pardon our sins, and deliver us
from punishment, which he exerciseth with love and tenderness.
But yet all this while, he hath not directly denied, that Christ,
in his offering himself as a priest, had first respect unto God,
which was the only thing in question, and that because he had
not long before granted that the Scripture in express terms af-
firms it; but he would make a shew of reasons, why, though the
thing be not so indeed, yet it is mentioned as though it were;
which is first to assign a falsehood to the holy writers, and then
to excuse it. His ensuing discourse in this place, wherein he

designs to prove that God is said to do something for Christ, which yet he doth himself (as the subduing of his enemies and the like) by virtue of the power he hath received of God, is sa exceedingly impertinent to the present occasion, as being designed only for a diversion from the cause in hand, as that I shall pass it by, and come to that part of his disputation, wherein he begins to speak his mind with more openness and freedom than before.

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

us.

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

pur

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

Answ. 1. He is mistaken in supposing that the apostle, in the places alleged, doth omit or neglect the consideration of the analogy between the ancient priesthood and sacrifice, and those of Christ. For in the first place, ch. ii. 17. those words, is agχιερευς τα προς τον Θεον, εις το ιλασκεσθαι τας άμαρτιας τε λακ, «A faithful high priest in things pertaining unto God, to make reconci