SECT. 17.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 2a%
sin, without respect unto 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 fond in the application ot ~ 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 thereunto. 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 re- demption, forgiveness, freedom from wrath,—all the effects of the sacrifice of Christ,—are frequently and signally ascribed unto his blood-shedding. But is there any intention to intimate that the effu- sion 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 unto 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 ex- alted to heaven, after his death, by the power that he hath received from God he pardons our sins, and delivereth us from the punish- ment 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. (11.) 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, pro- ceedeth 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 sac- rifice of Christ did in no sense procure our redemption, or par- don of sin, or deliverance from the punishment due unto it, to what end the Holy Ghost should use these expressions, why he
228 _ OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXII. -
should largely and particularly insist upon them and their ex- planation for our instruction, seeing the only thing imtended 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. Let him that can, assign a tolerable reason why the exercise of the power of Christ in heaven, because it is given him of God, should be called his of- fering, sacrifice, 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 punishment deserved by them, he received it of God, who gave all things into his hands, 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 imagina- tion. (12.) In the mention of those things whereby God should at least seem to be moved to grant unto 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 everywhere 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 punishment” (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 him- self 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 par- don our sins and deliver us from punishment, which he exerciseth with love and tenderness. But yet all this while he hath not di- rectly 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