SECT. 17.] OF TITE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 225
cording to the opinion of our adversaries, we deny that there is any such likeness or similitude between what Christ doth in taking away of sin and what was done by the priests of old, as that any denomi- nation could or ought thence to be taken, or any name assigned unto 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 “ que 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 be- longing to the one properly, unto 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 the pattern in heavenly things according unto the idea whereof all legal sacrifices were appointed to make a repre- sentation; that is, God. having designed his Son Jesus Christ to be the high priest of his church, and to expiate their sins by the sacri- fice of himself, did appoint the legal priesthood and sacrifices, ob- seurely to delineate that design before its actual accomplishment. And indeed here lies the true difference between us and the So- cinians 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 unto, 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 re- present his purpose therein, to be accomplished in the fulness of time, and grant an outward means or pledge unto 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 testa- ment, as hath been proved at large before. Wherefore, [2.] Seeing they were types appointed of God to set out, teach, and paren
VOL. XIX,
226 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXII.
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 in- structive beforehand 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 saerifices con- sisted in the slaying, and oblation on the altar, of the victim, so did Christ’s in his death and blood-shedding; if God was 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 unto 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 communicating spiritually what they did carnally represent. Crellius thinks that all sacrifices were only conditions required antecedently unto the free pardon of sin, which he calls the “ pardoning of sin by virtue of God’s decree,” but that they had no influence unto 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 unto the same end. It is plain that all expiatory sacrifices did at least make a representation of commutation, satis- faction, 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 for their institution. Where- fore 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. (6.) There is indeed, according to the opinion of these men, no similitude between them; for the legal sacrifices did not consist im the repre- sentation 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, whereunto 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 unto the presence of God in the sanctuary only, whereas that which was done at the altar was also said to be done before God, and nowhere else were any sacrifices offered. (7.) The use of legal sacrifices here granted 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