2. It was the blood whereby atonement was made, and that as it was the life of the creature. And the reason why it was given to make atonement, was because the life was init. Wherefore that act whereby the blood of the creature was so taken away, as that thereby the life of it was destroyed, was the principal thing in the sacrifice itself. It is true, atonement on the altar was made with the blood after the effusion of it; but it was with it whilst it was yet warm, before the animal spirits were utterly departed from it, and that because its virtue for expiation depended on its being poured out in death. And no blood could have been offered, but that which was taken away in the mactation or total destruction of life of the sacrifice. And the pouring of the blood at the altar, with the sprinkling of it variously, belonged to the appropriation of the sacrifice to God, to whose sanctified altar it was brought.
3. There was the burning of the sacrifice, or in some cases the principal parts of it on the altar. This finished or completed the sacrifice. For whereas in the great anniversay of expiation some part of the blood of the sacrifice was carried into the holy place, it was no part of the sacrifice itself, but a consequent of it, in a holy improvement of what was finished before, as to the duty itself. And this was appointed for noother end, but because it was the only way whereby the perpetual efficacy of the blood of Christ in heaven, which was shed on the earth, might be represented.
In these things did the discharge of the priestly office in those of the order of Aaron principally consist. And all these things were exactly answered and fulfilled in a spiritual and glorious manner, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the great high priest of the church, who was himself to be all, and to do all, after he had solemnly dedicated and consecrated himself to this work; as we shall see by a review and application of the particulars recounted..
§ 10. First. There was the adduction, or his bringing himself to be an offering or sacrifice to God. And this consisted in all those sacred actions of his which were previously preparatory to his death. As, 1. His going to Jerusalem to that passover. He went on purpose to offer himself to God. And in his way he acquainted his disciples with what would befal;him therein, Luke xviii. 31—33; Matt. xx. 17—19; which, when one of themwould have dissuaded him from, he gave him that vehement and severe reproof, ‘Get thee behind me, Sat@ithou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God,’ Matt. xvi. 23. Peter, considering only the outward part of his sufferings, with the shame and scandal wherewith it was attended, would have prevailed with him to have avoided it, which he knew was in his power to do. But withal, which he knew not. he dissuaded him from gommg to offer himself to God, for which cause principally he came into the world, and so fell under this sacred rebuke. For this great and weighty work of obedience was so fully implanted in the heart of Christ, that he could not bear with any thing that had the appearance of a diversion from it. With such intention, freedom, willingness, and readiness of mind did he go to offer himself according to the will of God, which gave life, virtue, and merit to his oblation. 2. His going into the garden the night before his suffering. What was it, but as it were the bringing of himself to the door of the tabernacle to offer himself to God. or to make his soul an offering for sin according to the will of God? 3. He offered up unto God prayers and supplications, which, because they had respect to his sacrifice, is reckoned by our apostle as sacerdotal acts, Heb. v. 7. Principally his prayers in the garden are intended; for his supplications there, with the manner of them, the apostle expresses and declares: see our exposition of the place. or all sacrifices were accompanied with supplications for grace and pardon. And herein did our Saviour actually give up himself to God to be a sacrifice, which was to be done by expressions of his obedience, and supplications for that issue thereof which was promised tohim. 4. His pro-passion or fore-suffering in the garden, in the anguish of his soul; the agony of his mind and bloody sweat, belong hereto. Hereon indeed succeeded an external shame, which was necessary for the leading and bringing of him asa lamb to the slaughter, Isa. liii. 7, but his own mind and will it was, that brought him to be a sacrifice to God. The offering himself was his own act from first to last, and is constantly ascribed to him.
Secondly. There was mactation, or slaying of the sacrifice, which was in his death, as it was bloody. Herein consisted the essence and substance of the sacrifice. Herein he offered himself to God. For although the other acts of sprinkling the blood, and burning the carcase of the sacrifice, or its oblation, were in the typical sacrifices distinct from the slaying of it, yet this was by reason of the imperfection of all persons and things that were made use of in that sacred service. Hence many distinct acts succeeding one to another among them were necessary. In the Lord Christ, by reason of the perfection of his person, and that he himself was both priest and sacrifice, things were done at once, which were separately by them represented. Wherefore, in the very death of Christ, in and by his blood-shedding, he offered himself to God.
It is fondly excepted, that if his death were his sacrifice, the Jews and the soldiers who crucified him were the priests. The violence that was offered to him by all sorts of persons, was necessary on other accounts. §$o also were the assaults which he then conflicted with from the prince and power of darkness, for they belonged to the curse of the law which was now upon him. But his being a sacrifice depended only on his own will, offering himself in obedience to the will of God according to the compact before described. The soldiers were no more but as the cords that bound the sacrifice to the horns of the altar. Nor did they so take away his life, but | that he laid it down,of his own mere will, in compliance with the command of the Father, John x. 18. |
In the pouring out of his blood, the hedflénly altar of his body was sprinkled, and all heavenly things purified, even with this better sacrifice, Heb. iv. 23. Thus is he said to pour out his soul to death, Isa. lai. 12. That expression contains the whole nature of a sacrifice. For his soul is said to be poured out to death, with respect to the pouring out of the blood. For in it was the life poured out, the blood being given to make atonement, because the life was in it.
Thirdly. There was the oblation itself. This, in those sacrifices, the sacred performance whereof was accomplished πολύυμερως, by many parts and degrees, by reason of the imperfection of the sacrificer and sacrificed, followed after the mactation, with the shedding and sprinkling of blood. In this absolutely perfect sacrifice of Christ, it was not so. His oblation was at the same time, and in the same action with his blood-shedding. For it was his holy obediential giving up himself to the will of God, in undergoing what was due to our sins, making atonement for them thereby. ‘He offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 1x. 14. The Holy and Eternal Spirit of God dwelling in him in all fulness, supporting his faith, confirming his obedience, kindled in him that fire of zeal to the glory of God, and the reparation of his honour from the reflection cast upon it by the sin, apostasy, disobedience, and rebellion of mankind, with that flame of love to their salvation, which, as it were, consumed this sacrifice in its oblation te God. Thus, in and by his giving himself for us, that is, in and by his death, which is constantly intended by that expression, he made himself an offering and sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour, Eph. v. 2.
Fourthly. Hereon ensued the representation of the whole in answer to the high priest’s entering into the holy place with a token, part, representation, and remembrance of the blood that was offered on the altar. This was done by Christ, when he entered into the holy place not made with hands, as it were sprinkled with his own blood, or accompanied with the efficacy and merit of his sacerdotal offerings, to appear in the presence of God for us. This was consequential to that offering of himself whereby he made atonement for us; for he entered into the holy place, awyiayv uTpwow εὑραμενος, Heb. ix. 12, ‘ Having obtained eternal redemption.’ His obtaining eternal redemption was by the sacrifice of himself in his death. Jor redemption was by price and exchange. And the Lord Christ paid no other price for sin and sinners, but his own blood, 1 Pet. i. 18,19. And this was antecedent unto his entering into the holy place; for he did so having obtained eternal redemption. And it is in vain to expect that sometimes things present are expressed by verbs and _ participles of a preterite signification, or in those tenses which denote things past, seeing they are not to be construed.so, unless the matter spoken of do enforce such a construction, whereof here there is no pretence. Nor can any one instance be given of the use of εὑρισκω in that way in the whole New Testament; see Heb. ix. 24.
§ 11. This brief account of the analogy that was between the sacerdotal actings in sacrificing under the law, and those of the Lord Christ offering himself as our high priest unto God, doth fully evince the time, place, and manner of his discharge of this office, whereby the nature of it is also manifested. The sacrifice indeed of Christ, was not carried on by those distinct, separate steps and degrees which the sacrifices of old were, by reason of the imperfection of the offerer, and what was offered, and the necessity of many circumstances in those things which were carnal in themselves, and appointed to be carnally visible; yet in the whole, in the transactions that were invisibly carried on between Christ the High Priest, and God, unto whom he offered himself, every thing that belonged unto the nature of a true and real sacrifice, or which, as such was represented by them of old, was in its proper place, order, and manner, actually accomplished. And I must needs say, that I look upon it as one of the boldest attempts on religion that ever was made by men pretending unto any sobriety, namely, to deny that the Lord Christ was a priest whilst he was on earth, or that he offered himself a sacrifice unto God in his death. And those who have the confidence to stand and persist in that opinion, against all that light which the nature of the thing itself, and the testimonies of Scripture do give unto the truth in this matter, need not fear that on any occasion they shall be wanting unto themselves therein. But of these things I must treat more fully in our ensuing exercitation.
by any sort of expiatory sacrifices. And Svova or Tat is such a sacrifice as consisted in mactation or killing, as we have proved before. ‘This Christ offered in his death, or when, out of his love unto us, in obedience unto the will of God, he gave up himself unto death for us. This love and obedience the Socinians say, is the sacrifice intended in! this place, which is, therefore, metaphorical; but that Christ offered himself a sacrifice in his death, they deny that the apostle here asserts. But, Ist. Inall other places where there is any mention of the offering of Christ, it is expressly said that he offered himself, or his soul, or his body, Isa. 111. 10; Heb. ix. 14, x. 10, yea, as here he is said to offer sacrifice in his death, so his suffering therein is affirmed to be necessary to his sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix. 24, 25. He gave himself for us a sacrifice, isno more but that he suffered when he offered himself, as the apostle expressly affirms. 2d. Although προσφορὰ may be used for a metaphorical sacrifice, and so possibly may θυσια algo, yet, whenever they are conjoined in the Scripture, they denote all sorts of proper sacrifices, as is evident from the place before cited; and therefore, they can intend here nothing but that sacrifice which all those proper sacrifices prefigured. Besides θυσία, unless the metaphor be evident and cogent, doth signify nothing but a sacrifice by immolation or killing. Overy, aS We have shown, is but σφαττειν, to kill, only it is to slay in sacred services, with respect also whereunto the other word is used in good authors. So Plutarch affirms of the Gauls, that they believed, Θεοὺς εἰναι χαιροντάς avOpwrwv σφαττομένων αἵματι, καὶ TavTnY τελειοτατὴην θυσιαν, ‘that the gods delighted in the blood of slain men, and that this was the most perfect sacrifice. Ανθρωποσφαγια, if it respect things sacred, is the same with ανθρωποθυσια, So, whereas the Lord Christ was ἀρνίον ἐσφαγμενον, a lamb slain, Rey. v. 12, xiii. 8, being called a Lamb, and the Lamb of God, as all acknowledge with respect to the paschal lamb, it is said, πασχα ἡμων εθυθη Χριστος, 1 Cor. v. 7, ‘Christ our passover (our paschal Lamb) is sacrificed for us.’ Θύσια, therefore, being used to express the nature of the death of Christ with respect to God, nothing can be intended thereby but a proper and bloody sacrifice. 3d. Our adversaries acknowledge, that the Lord Christ did offer himself as a complete expiatory sacrifice to God. I ask, then, when he is positively and directly affirmed to offer himself an offering and sacrifice to God, why is not that the expiatory sacrifice which he offered? They have not any thing to reply, but only that he offered not that sacrifice in his death, but only his entrance into heaven, which is only in favour of their own hypothesis, to contradict the apostle to his face. 4th. Προσφοραν καὶ θυσιαν are regulated by the same verb with éavroy; παρέδωκεν ἑαυτον προσφοραν και θυσιαν; 80 that there can be no other sense of the words, but, Christ offered himself a sacrifice, or gave himself a sacrifice. And, whereas it is objected, that παραδιδωμι is not used for sacrificing or offering sacrifice; besides, that it is false, as may be seen, Micah vi. 7, where jn3 in the original is rendered by παραδιδωμι, so, here there was a peculiar reason for the use of this word, because the. apostle included in the same expression, both his giving himself for us, and the manner of it; namely, by giving himself a sacrifice to God for us. 5th. Whereas it is said that this sacrifice was a sweet-smelling savour unto God, it doth not advantage our adversaries, as I shall elsewhere manifest from the rise, nature, and first use of that expression. At present, it may suffice that it is used expressly concerning expiatory sacrifices, Ley. iy. 31, and whole burnt-offerings, which were of the same nature, Lev. 1. 9. And whereas, this is the first kind of sacrifice appointed under the law, and is said expressly to make atonement, ver. 4, and therein to be an offering of a sweet savour to the Lord, it plainly declares that all other sacrifices which made atonement, were in like manner a sweet savour to the Lord; on the account whereof, that of Christ, wherein God rested and was well pleased, is so called. But of these things we must treat elsewhere more at large.
§ 13. Heb. ν. 6, 7, ‘ As he also saith in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him trom death.’ The reader may consult the exposition of this place, wherein the difficulties of it are removed, and the intention of the Holy Ghost in it is truly explained. At present I shall only observe some few passages in confirmation of the truth under consideration, As, 1. The works, acts, or duties here assigned to Christ, are assigned to him expressly, as he was a high priest, as is undeniably manifest in the context. Wherefore, they are sacerdotal acts, or acts of Christ asa priest. 2. He performed them in the days of his flesh, and that when le was in great distress, standing in need of aid and assistance from God, that is, at the time of his death. 3. It is, therefore, here plainly affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ, as a high priest, did, in his dying for us, ‘offer unto God.’ If we inquire in other places what he offered, it is expressly said that it was himself, his soul, his body, as we have proved. And that Christ, as a High Priest, in the days of his flesh, offered himself to God, is all that we need for the confirmation of what we assert concerning the time, place, and nature of the exercise of his priesthood. It will be excepted, that Christ is not said in this place to offer himself, but only to offer up prayers and supplications, which are a metaphorical and not a real sacrifice. But the apostle did not solemnly introduce him as called to the office of a high priest, and acting the powers of that office, merely with respect to prayers and supplications considered by themselves, and to instance in those only at his death, when he might have mentioned those when in the course of his life he continued mighty by himself. What he offered he intended afterwards to declare, and doth so expressly: here he designed only to assert, that being called to be a high priest, he offered unto God, and that as to the manner of that offering, it was with prayers and supplications, cries and tears, wherein he describes his offering of himself by those adjuncts of it which were also sacerdotal..
Christ that is intended in both; his entrance into heaven being only the means of his sitting down at the right hand of God.- And therefore, they are never mentioned together, but sometimes the one, sometimes the other is made use of to express the same state. So his sitting down at the right hand of God is expressed as immediately ensuing on his suffering, it being that state whereunto his resurrection, ascension, and entrance into heaven were subservient. ‘ He endured the cross, and despising the shame, is set down at the right hand of the throne of God, Heb. xu. 2. The whole is, that he passed through the heavens, ch. iv. 14, and was thereon made higher than the heavens, ch. vii. 26. That is, he suffered, and so entered into his glory, Luke xxiv. 26. Nor doth the Scripture any where give the least intimation of any mediatorial act of Christ interposing between his entrance into heaven, and sitting down at the right hand of God. 2d. This answer hath no consistency with their own principles in this matter. For they contend that the expiation of our sins consists in the taking of them away, by freeing us from the punishment which is due unto them. And this must be done by virtue of the power which Christ received of God after his obedience. But this his receiving of power belongs unto his sitting at the right hand of God; so as he can in no sense be said to have purged or expiated our sins before it. And if they will allow that Christ expiated our sins any where in heaven or earth, antecedently unto our actual freedom in present pardon, or future complete deliverance, then doth not the expiation of sins consist in our actual deliverance from them, as they contend that it doth.
§ 15. To the same purpose speaks the apostle, Heb. ix. 12, Δια τοὺ ιδιοι «αἵματος εἰσηλθεν ἐφαπαξ εἰς Ta ἁγια, awwy.ay λυτρωσιν εὑραμενος, “ By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. This entrance of Christ into the holy place was his entrance into heaven. Antecedently hereunto he is said to have obtained eternal redemption. This redemption we have by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Eph. i. 7. And this forgiveness, or the putting away of sin, was by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix. 26. Wherefore, the sacrifice of Christ, _whereby he obtained redemption, or put away sin, was by his blood-shedding. And this was, as it is here expressed, antecedent unto his entrance unto the holy place. Crellius, in answer to this testimony, p. 536, engageth into a long discourse to prove that things present, or not perfectly past, are sometimes expressed by the Aoristus, or sign of the time past, as if our argument from hence were built merely on that form of the word, on supposition of a general maxim that all words in that tense do necessarily signify the time past. But we proceed on no such supposition. We say indeed, and contend, that there must be some cogent reason to interpret that of the time present or to come, which is expressed as past and done. For this we say there is none in this place, nor is any pretended but the false hypothesis of our adversaries, that Christ offered not himself until his entrance into heaven, which they judge sufficient to oppose unto the clearest testimonies to the contrary; for, whereas the words of the apostle signify directly that the Lord Christ first obtained eternal redemption, and then entered into heayen or the holy place not made with hands; they will have his intention to be the direct contrary, that he first entered into heaven, and then obtained eternal redemption. For that offering of himself which they suppose, was consequential unto his entrance into the holy place. But we argue from the scope of the words. It is said that Christ entered into the holy place once by his own blood, haying obtained eternal redemption: I desire to know, how or by what means did he so obtain, or find, or acquire it; is it not plain that it was by his own blood? and that which he shed before he entered into the sanctuary.
§ 16. Moreover, Christ is said to offer himself once, ch. vii. 27,ix. 28, x. 10, xi. 14. His offering was one, and once offered. An action once performed, and then ceasing to;be performed, however it continue in its virtue and efficacy, is so expressed. The high priest entered into the holy place once in the year; that is, his so doing was an act that was at once performed, and after was not for that year. Hence, the apostle proves the excellency of this sacrifice of Christ, above those of the Aaronical priests, because they by reason of their weakness and imperfection were often offered, this of Christ being every way complete, and of infinite efficacy, was offered but once and at once, Heb. x. 1—4, &c. What sacrifice, therefore, can this be that was then but once offered? Doth this seem to express the continual appearance of Christ in heaven, which if a sacrifice, is always offering, and not once offered, and so would be inferior unto them which were offered only once a year. For that which effecteth its design by being performed once a year, is more efficacious than that which must be always effecting. Besides, our apostle says expressly that the Lord Christ was ‘once offered to bear the sins of many, ch. ix. 28. But this he did then, and only then, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. ii. 24, which urefragably proves that then he was offered to God.
§ 17. Add yet hereunto that the offering of Christ, which the apostle insists upon as his great sacerdotal act and duty, was necessarily accompanied with suffering, and therefore was on the earth and not in heaven, ch. ix. 25, 26. ‘ Not that he should offer himself often, for then must he have often suffered from the foundation af the world.’ The argument of the apostle is built upon a general principle, that all sacrifice was in and by suffering. The sacrificed beast was slain, and had his blood poured out. Without this there could be no sacrifice. Therefore, if Christ himself had been to have been often offered, he must have often suffered. It is excepted that although his offering did not consist in his suffering, nor did they both concur at the same time, yet his suffering was previously necessary as an antecedent condition unto his offering of himself in heaven. And on that account the apostle might well conclude, that if it were often to be offered, he must have often suffered. But, 1. There can be no reason given on the opinion of our adversaries, why the sufferings of Christ were antecedently necessary unto that offering of himself which they imagine. At best they refer it unto an absolute free act of the will of God which might have been otherwise, and Christ might have often offered, and yet not often suffered. 2. Christ is said not only to offer himself, but to be offered; Christ was ‘ once offered to bear the sins of many,’ ver. 28. Now, though the offering of himself may be accommodated unto that presentation which he made of himself in heaven; yet, his being offered to bear sins, plainly includes a suffering in what he did. 3. There were many typical sacrifices which nothing belonging unto, went beyond their suffering. Such were all the expiatory sacrifices, or sacrifices to make atonement, whose blood was not carried into the sanctuary. For their slaying, the pouring out of their blood, the consumption on the altar, were all destructive unto their beings. And these sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, as our apostle testifies, Heb. vii. 27, ‘ Who needeth not daily (καθ᾽ ἡμερανῪ to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s, for this he did once when he offered up himself.’ Had he in-
And this is yet more plainly expressed, ch. x. 11, 12, ‘And every priest standeth daily ministering and sacrificing oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God.’ Comparing the sacrifices of Christ with these sacrifices, he declares that they were types and representations thereof, or there would be no foundation for such a comparison, nor for the exaltation of his above them, as to its efficacy and its consequents. But there was nothing of these sacrifices carried into the holy place, nor any representation made of them therein, but in their suffering and destruction they were consummated. For they were the sacrifices which every priest who ministered at the altar did offer either daily, or on all occasions. Wherefore if the sacrifice of Christ answered to them as the apostle teacheth us that it did, he offered it in his sufferings, his death and blood-shedding only. After this, he entered as our high priest into the holy place not made with hands, to appear in the presence of God for us. And as this was signified by the high priest’s entering into the holy place, with the blood of the bullock and goat that were offered for a sin-offering, so it was necessary in itself to the application of the value and efficacy of his sacrifice to the church, according to the covenant between Father and Son before described.
What hath been pleaded, is sufficient to our present purpose, as to the declaration of the nature of the priesthood of Christ, his entrance upon it, and discharge of it. But there being another opinion concerning it, universally opposite in all particulars to the truth declared and vindicated, we must, for the security of the faith of the church, call it, with the ways, means, and artifices wherewith it is endeavoured to be supported, to an account, which shall be done in the ensuing Exercitations,
§ 1. The opinion of the Socinians about the priesthood of Christ distinctly stated in eight particulars. ὁ 2, Expressed by themselves. § 3. The faith of the church of God, in opposition thereto. § 4. Vindication of the whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ from the perversion of it, and opposition made unto it, by Crellius. Its agreement and disagreement with his kingly office and power. § 5. How the priestly office of Christ is mentioned by the other writers of the New Testament, and why principally handled in this Epistle to the Hebrews. § 6. Intercession, no act of Christ’s kingly power. Rom, viii. 34, vindicated. The mutual respect between the offices of Christ, with regard to the same general end. § 7.1. John ii. 2, vindicated. Testimonies of the Old and New Testament omitted. Confidence of the Socinians in pretending to own the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. § 8. The priesthood of Christ is not comprehended by the holy writers in his kingly office. Attempts to prove it, vain. The nature of the expiation of sins vindicated, Heb. iv. 16. § 9. The words of the Psalmist, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ how and in what sense applied by the apostles, with respect to the office of Christ. § 10. Vanity of Crellius in assigning differences between the kingly and priestly offices of Christ. § 11. The differences assigned by him, examined, $12. Real difference and distinction between these offices, proved. § 15, The dignity and honour of Christ exposed, by denying his real priesthood. § 14. The boldness of Smalcius in censuring the divine writers. His reason why they ascribed the priestly office to Christ.
“ § 1. Tur opinion of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ, was expressed in general in our preceding discourse. But for the clearer apprehension and confutation of it, it is necessary that it be more particularly declared in the most important parts of it; as also that its contrariety to the faith of the church may be the more plainly demonstrated. And the sum of what they pretend to apprehend and believe herein may be re-_ duced to the ensuing heads.
1. ‘That the Lord Christ was not, nor is a high priest, properly so called; but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion between what he doth for the church, and what was done by the high priest under the law for ‘ that people.’ And here, if they please, they may rest, as having in design utterly overthrown or rejected this office of Christ. But further to manifest their intentions, they add:
2. ‘ That he was not at all, in any sense, a high priest whilst he was in the earth, or before his ascension into heaven.’ And this because he did not any of those things on the earth, on the account whereof he is called a high priest, in an allusion to the high priest under the law. Hence it follows, that in his death he offered no sacrifice to God, nor made any expiation of our sins thereby, which’also that he did not, they expressly contend.
3. ‘That therefore he became a high priest when he entered into heaven, and presented himself alive unto God.’ Not that then he received any new office which he had not before, but only that then he had power to do those things, from the doing whereof he is metaphorically denominated a priest. Wherefore they say,
A, ‘That it is in heaven he makes atonement, and doth expiate our sins, which is called his offering himself unto God an expiatory oblation or sacrifice, which, as it consisted not in his suffering, death, and blood-shedding, so had it no virtue or efficacy from thence, but only as it was a condition pre-required thereunto.’;
5. ‘This expiation of our sins consists principally in two things, 1. Our deliverance from the punishment due unto them, initially in this world by pardon;'and completely at the last day, when we shall be saved from the wrath to come. 2. In our deliverance from the power of sin by faith in the doctrine he taught, and conformity unto his example that we should not serve it in this world. And,
6. ‘Hence it follows, that believers are the first proper objects of the discharge of the duties of this office, or of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ.’ For they consist in the help, aid, relief, and deliverance from our spiritual enemies which we have by him; his gracious and merciful will of relieving us, being that on the account whereof he is called a high priest, and wherein that office doth consist. Wherefore,
7. ‘This priestly office of Christ is upon the matter the same with his. kingly office; or it is the exerting and exercise of his kingly power with love, care, and compassion, so called in the Epistle to the Hebrews, out of an allusion to what was done by the high priests of old.
8. ‘Whereas his intercession doth belong to this office of his, and is expressly assigned to him as a high priest, it is nothing but a note, evidence, or expression, to teach us, that the power which the Lord Christ exerciseth and putteth forth mercifully for our relief, he receiveth originally from God, as if he had prayed to him for it.’ εἰ
§ 2. I have so included and expressed the apprehensions of these men, concerning the priesthood of Christ in these positions, as that I am persuaded that no one who is ingenuous amongst them will except against any parti- cular in the account. But that none may reflect in their thoughts about it, I shall repeat it in the words of one of their principal writers. To this purpose speaks Volkelius, De Vera Relig. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 144. ‘Jam ut
de pontificio Christi munere explicemus; primo loco animadvertendum nobis est, illud ab ejusdem officio regio, si in rem ipsam mentem intendas, non multum differre. Cum divinus Spiritus figurato hoc analogicoque dicendi genere, quo pacto Christus regni sui functionem administret, ante oculos nostros constituere potissimum voluerit, nobisque ostendere illum non solum salutem nostram procurare posse, sed etiam nos juvare velle, et porro id omnino facere inque eo totum esse ut peccata nostra penitus expiet; ἅ. 9. tum ab ipsis peccatis, tum vero preecipue ab eorum reatu ac poena nos liberet. Again, p. 146, ‘ Ut huic sacerdotis officio rite preeponeretur Christus, non satis erat eum in homines esse misericordem, nisi insuper tanta illius, esset potestas, quanta ad homines miseriis oppressos divinissima ope sublevandos, pestemque xternam ab illorum capitibus propulsandam opus est; cumque omnis ad hance rem in ccelo terraque potestas requiratur, consequens est Christum antequam in ccelum ascenderet, tantumque rerum omnium dominatum consequeretur, summum sacerdotem nostrum nondum perfectum fuisse. So he, and much more to the same purpose.
In like manner, ‘ Catechis. Racovian. de Munere Christi Sacerdotali.
Quest. 1. Munus sacerdotale in eo situm est, quod quemadmodum pro regio munere potest nobis in omnibus nostris necessitatibus subvenire; ita pro munere sacerdotali vult ac porro subvenit. Atque hee illius subveniendi seu opis afferende ratio, sacrifictum ejus appellatur.
* Quare hee ejus afferende ratio sacrificlum vocatur? vocatur ita figurato loquendi modo, &c.
‘Quid porro est peccatorum expiatio? Est a poenis que peccata tum temporariz, tum eterne comitantur, et ab ipsis etiam peccatis ne eis ser- _viamus, liberatio. '
‘Cur id sacrificium Christi in ccelis peragitur? Ideo quod tale tabernaculum requireret, &c.
‘Quid? Annon erat sacerdos antequam in ccelos ascenderet et preeserti cruci affixus penderet? Non erat.’
§ 3. But the faith of the church of God stands up in direct opposition to all these imaginations. For it asserteth, 1. That our Lord Jesus Christ was, and is truly and properly, the high priest of the church, and that all others vested with that office under the law, were only types and representatives of him. And the description which the apostle gives of a high priest, properly so called, is accommodated and appropriated by himself unto him, Heb. v. 1—3, as also all the acts, duties, or offices of the priesthood, are accordingly ascribed unto him, ch. vii. 26, 27, x. 6, 7, ix. 24; 1 John ii. 21. 2. That he was perfectly and completely a high priest whilst he was on the earth, although he did not perfectly and completely discharge all the duties of that office in this world, seeing he lives for ever to make intercession for us. 3. That he offered himself an expiatory sacrifice to God in his death and blood-shedding, and was not made a priest upon his entrance into heaven, there to offer himself to God, where only the nature of his bloody sacrifice was represented. 4. That the expiation of our sins consisteth principally in the charging of the punishment due unto them upon the
Lord Christ, who took them on himself, and was made a sin-offering for them, that we may be freed from them, and from all the evil which follows _ them by the sentence of the law. And therefore, 5. God is the first proper object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ; for to him he offered himself, and with him he made atonement for sin. And thereon, 6. This office of Christ is distinct from his kingly office, and not in any of its proper acts or adjuncts coincident therewithal: all which assertions have been before declared and proved, and shall now be further vindicated.
§ 4. He who is supposed, and that not unjustly, to have amongst our adversaries handled those things with most diligence and subtilty, is Crellius. I shall therefore examine what he on set purpose disputes on this subject, and that not by referring the substance of his discourses to the distinct heads before mentioned, but by taking the whole of it as disposed in his own method and words, and that with a design to give a specimen of those artifices, diversions, ambiguous expressions, and equivecations, which he perpetually maketh use of in this cause and controversy. And where he seems to be defective, I shall call in Smalcius, and it may be some others of them, to his assistance. And I shall only transcribe his words in Latin, without adding any translation of them, as supposing that those who are competently able to judge of these things, are not wholly ignorant of that language, and that others may find enough fer their satisfaction in our Discourses, so far as they are concerned.
This controversy he expressly engageth in, ‘Respon. ad Grotium,’ cap.
10. Partic. 56, p. 543. ‘1. Pontificiam Christi dignitatem a prophetica et regia distinctam agnoscimus, quanquam non pari modo distinctam. 2. Arctius enim cum regia dignitate cohzret quam cum prophetica. 3. Unde duo ista munera regium nempe et pontificium, in sacris literis aperte a se invicem disjuncta, et ut in scholis loquuntur contradistincta, nuspiam cernas sed potius alterum in altero. 4. Quodammodo comprehensum videas. Nam, 5. D. Auctor. Heb. ii. mitio, Christi dignitatem quam ratione muneris sibi a Deo mandati habeat, nobis ante oculos ponere volens, et ad ejus considerationem nos cohortans, duo tantum illius officia commemorat propheticum et sacerdotale, quorum illud in terris olim absolvit, hoc in ccelis perpetuo administrat, dum inquit: unde, fratres sancti vocationis coelestis participes, considerate apostolum (seu, legatum) et pontificem confessionis nostre Christum Jesum. Apostolum sive legatum confessionis, /. 6. Religionis ac fidei nostree quam profiter1 debemus, vocat Christum, quia ad eam nobis annunciandam olim a Deo missus fwit quod est prophete. Pontificem autem ejusdem confessionis seu religionis appellat, 6. Quia ad eam perpetuo tuendam et curam ejus gerendam, ὦ. ¢ ad omnia ea que ad illam spectant administranda et ad exitum in nobis perducenda a Deo constitutus est; quasi summum religionis nostre ac sacrorum presidem aut administratorem dicas, quod infra, cap. xii. ver 1. illis verbis expressit, dum eum ducem et consummatorem fidei appellat; quia non tantum yoce et exemplo nobis ad eam preeivit, verum etiam eandem ad Dei dextram nunc collocatus perficit, atque ad optatum finem perducit.’
That the Lord Christ is called a priest on some account or other, and is so, these men cannot deny, and therefore on all occasions they do in words expressly confess it. But their endeavour is to persuade us, that little or nothing is signified by that appellation as ascribed untohim. At least they will by no means allow that any such thing is intended in that expression, as it signifies in all other authors sacred and profane, when not applied unto MM2 the Lord Christ. They will not have a distinct office to be intended in it. Wherefore Crellius, although he acknowledge in the entrance of this discourse, Ist. That the priestly dignity of Christ is distinct from his kingly and prophetical dignities, yet his whole ensuing endeavour is to prove that the priesthood is not a distinct office in him. And he sophistically makes use of the word dignity, the priestly dignity, to make an appearance of a distinct office from the kingly, which here he expresseth by dignity also. And when he mentions ‘ officium pontificale;’ as distinct from the ‘ offictum propheticum,’ he expressly intendeth his kingly office. And they do constantly in their other writings call the one ‘offictum regium, the other ‘munus sacerdotale;’ supposing the first word to denote an habitual power, and the latter only actual exercise, wherein yet they are mistaken. The priestly dignity therefore here intended, and by which word he would impose on the less wary reader, is nothing but the honour that is due unto Christ for and in the discharge of his kingly office and power, in a merciful gracious manner, as the priests did of old. Wherefore he adds, 2d. Notwithstanding this distinction, yet the sacerdetal dignity comes nearer or closer to the kingly dignity than the prophetical. But this assertion is not built on any general principle taken from the nature of these offices themselves, as though there was a greater agreement between the kingly and priestly office, than between the priestly and prophetical. For the prophetical and sacerdotal offices, seem on many accounts to be of a nearer alliance than the sacerdotal and kingly, as we shall see afterwards. But this is only a step towards the main design, of totally subverting the sacerdotal office of Christ. For on this assertion it is added immediately, 3d. ‘That in the Scripture these two offices, the kingly and priestly, are never disjoined openly, or as contradistinct one to another, But yet his words are ambiguous. If he intend that they are not plainly and so openly distinguished in the Scripture one from the other, there is nothing more openly false. They are so in name and things, in the powers, acts, duties, and effects. If by ‘a se invicem disjuncta et contradistincta, he intends such a divulsion and separation as that they should agree in nothing, not in their subject, not in their original, nor in their general ends and eftects, so no ofhces of him are divided who in them all is the Mediator between God and men. But they are no where so conjoined as that one of them should be contained and comprehended in the other. 4th. ‘Quodammodo,’ after a sort as he speaks. For this word also is of a large and ambiguous:signification, used on purpose to obscure the matter treated of, or the sense of the author about it- Is one so comprehended in the other, as to be the same with if, to be a part of it, or to be only the exercise of the power of the other inan especial manner? If this be the mind of this author, it can be expressed by ‘ quodammodo,’ for no other end, but because he dares not openly avow his sense and mind. But we deny that one is thus contained in the other, or any way so as to-hinder it from being a distinct office of itself, accompanied with its distinct power, right, acts, and duties.
The argument from Heb. iii. 1, 2,3, whereby he attempts to prove, ‘that one of these offices is contained in the other ‘ quodammodo, whatever that be, 5th, is infirm and weak. Yea, he himself knew well enough the weakness of it. It consists in this only, that the apostle in that place makes mention of the prophetical and of the priestly office of Christ, and not of the kingly; for which Crellius himself gives this reason in his commentary on the place, namely, because, as he supposeth, he had treated fully of the priestly office in the first chapter. In the third, the place here produced by him, as himself observes, he is entering on his comparing Christ with Moses, who was the prophet, apostle, ambassador or legate of God to the people, and Aaron who was their priest; and with respect hereunto, he calls the Hebrews to a due consideration of him, especially considering that they had a deep and fixed apprehension concerning the kingly power of the Messiah, but of his being the great prophet and high priest of the church, they had heard little in their Judaism. It doth not therefore follow hence, that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are comprehended one in another ‘quodammodo;’ but only that the apostle having distinctly handled the kingly office of Christ before, as he had done both in the first and second chapters, now proceeding to the consideration of his priestly and prophetical offices, makes no mention thereof, nor indeed would it have been to his purpose so to have done; yea, it was expressly contrary to his design. For what is next proposed concerning the nature of these offices, it is agreed, that the Lord Chmist is called our apostle, as he was the prophet of the church, sent of God to reveal and declare his mind and love unto us. But it is not so that he is called, 6th, a high priest, that is principally, first and properly, because of the care he takes of our religion, and his administration of the affairs of it. Yea, there is nothing mere opposite than their notion of the priesthood of | Christ, not only to the general nature of that office, with the common sense of mankind concerning it, but also to the whole.discourse of the apostle on this subject. For he not only asserts, but proves by sundry arguments, that the Lord Christ was made a priest to offer sacrifice unto God, and to make reconciliation for sin, and intercession for sinners. It is his being constituted a high priest for ever, and having offered the one sacrifice of himself, whereby all that come unto God are sanctified, he doth as such a high priest preside over the spiritual worship of the house of God, so that in and by him alone we have access unto the throne of grace, and do enter into the holy place through the blood of his sacrifice, wherein he consecrated for us a new and living way of access to God. Wherefore our author utterly fails in his first attempt for a proof of what he had asserted.
δ. ὃ His next endeavour towards the same purpose, is from the silence of the other writers of the New Testament concerning this office of Christ. This he supposeth would not have been considering the excellency and use~ fulness of it, had it not been included in his kingly office, for so he expresseth himself p. 544.
‘Ceeteri Scriptores N. Testamenti, 1. Regium potius et propheticum munus commemorant, nec ullus ex iis Christum, 2. Diserte sacerdotem aut pontificem vocat; facturi id proculdubio creberrime, si id in ceteris Ipsius muneribus atque imprimis in regio, consideratis certis eorum circumstantiis, in quibus sacerdoti legali similis est Christus, intelligi ac facile comprehendi non posset, cum ex eo munere, 3. Salus nostra eterna pendeat, Heb. v. 1x. x. vili. 24, 25. Quandoquidem inde peccatorum nostrorum proficiscitur re- — missio et justificatio in qua beatitas nostra consistit.’
Answ. The intelligent reader may easily observe what is the judgment of this man concerning the priesthood of Christ; which is this, that in the exercise of his other offices he is so called because of some similitude unto the legal priests of old; which is plainly to deny and overthrow the office itself, and to leave no such thing in him, substituting a bare metaphorical allusive denomination in the room of it. And it is but a noise of words which is added concerning the dependence of our salvation on the sacerdotal duty of Christ, because indeed it is denied that he is a priest at all; and all that is intended thereby, is but the exercise of his other offices in some kind of likeness unto the high priest under the law. To affirm on this supposition, that forgiveness of sin, justification, salvation, blessedness, depend on this office, that is on a name given from this allusion, is only to serve a present occasion without respect to truth or sobriety. But in particular, [ say, Ist. There is more express mention of the distinct office of the priesthood of Christ, both as to its nature and its acts, than of his prophetical. Why, 2d. they do not directly and expressly call him a priest, they are not bound to give an account unto these men; it is enough for the faith of the church, that they do really and expressly ascribe unto him, the acts and duties of that office, such as could be performed by none but a priest properly so called, and particularly such as in no sense belong either to the prophetical or kingly office; namely, to offer himself a sacrifice, to be a propitiation, te wash us in his blood, to make intercession for us; yea, to be made sin for us, and the like. But this Epistle also belongeth unto the New Testament, nor is it as yet denied by the Socinians so to do. And herein this office of Christ is so plainly, fully, distinctly treated of and proposed, in its causes, nature, use and effects, with its necessity and the benefits we receive thereby, as that no other office of his, is in any part of the Scripture, nor in the whole of it, so graphically described.
The reason also why the full revelation of the nature of this office of Christ, was, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, reserved for this Epistle to the Hebrews, is so evident, that our author need not think so strange of it. Τὸ was among them that God of old had instituted the solemn representation of it in their typical priesthood. The nature of all these institutions they were now to be peculiarly instructed in; both that they might see the faithfulness of God in accomplishing what he designed by them, and the end that he put thereby unto their administration. Now though these things were of use to the whole church of God, that all might learn his truth, wisdom, and faithfulness in the harmony of the Old Testament and the New, yet were the Hebrews peculiarly concerned herein; and therefore the Holy Ghost reserved the full communication of those things, to his treating with them in an especial manner. But, 3d. All those acts of the sacerdotal office of Christ, whereon the pardon of sin, justification, and salvation do depend, are expressly mentioned by other writers of the New Testament; as 1 John ii. 2; Ephes. v. 2; 2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. vii. 3, 4, 34; 1 Johni. 7; Rev. i. 5; 1 Pet. i. 19, with sundry other places. Let it now be judged whether any thing of the least moment, hath as yet been offered in proof of the assertion laid down, namely, that the priestly office of Christ is contained in the kingly, ‘ Quodammodo.,’
§ 6. But he yet further enlargeth on this consideration. ‘ Quando autem
ezeteri Scriptores sacri id commemorant quod ad sacerdotium Christi magis proprie pertinet. 1. Munus hoc ipsum muneri regio, aut functionem functioni reyera non opponunt. Interpellationem Christi pro nobis, 2. Semel nominavit Paulus, Rom. viii. 34, sed inea. 3. Tacite actum etiam regi ipsius potestatis ad nos a poena liberandos pertinentem, tanquam interpellationis effectum quendam propositum complexus est, ἐνέργεια enim seu operatio a regia Christi potestate manans, atque ad nos a peena liberandos pertinens cure illius pro nobis susceptee quidam veluti effectus est et consequens. 4. Regiam quidem potestatem Apostolus ibi commemoravit in verbis: Qui etiam est in dextra Dei, et interpellationem ab ea distinxit; sed potestatis illius actum expresse non commemorayit, contentus interpellationem nominasse.
Answ. 1. This condition is imposed on us without warrant, that we ~ should produce testimonies out of the other writers of the New Testament, where the priestly office of Christ is opposed unto his kingly; nor do we pretend that any such thing is done in this Epistle. Nor are the offices of Christ any where opposed one unto another, nor ought they so to be. Nor can any man show wherein there is an opposition made between his kingly and prophetical office, which these men acknowledge to be distinct. And it sufficeth unto our purpose that the kingly and priestly offices are in their names, powers, acts, and duties, distinctly proposed and declared. And this author ought to have considered all the testimonies before mentioned, and not to have taken out only one or two of them which he thought he could best wrest unto his purpose, which is all that he hath attempted, and yet hath failed of his end. It is here said, 2. that Paul in his other epistles doth but once expressly mention the intercession of Christ in heaven, but he mentioneth his oblation on earth more frequently, as may be seen in the places quoted. And the mentioning of it in one place in words plain, and capable of no other sense, is as effectual as if it had been expressed in an hundred other places. 3. It is both false and frivolous to say,. that in speaking of Christ's» intercession, he doth tacitly include any act of his kingly power, whereby he frees us from punishment. It is false, because as intercession is certainly no act of kingly power, nor formally bath any respect thereunto,-it denoting the impetration of something from another, whereas all the acts of kingly authority are the exerting of that power which one hath in himself; so there is nothing in the text or context to give countenance unto any such imagination. For what relates unto the kingly power of Christ, namely, his sitting at the right hand of God, is expressed as a distinct act or adjunct of his mediatorial office, even as his dying and rising again are. And that his intercession is completely distinguished and separated from it. is plain in the expression whereby it is introduced; ὁς «at ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾳ του Θεου, ὁς και ἐντυγχάνει ὑπερ ὑμων, ‘who also is on the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. If therefore his being at the right hand of God is distinguished from his dying and rising again, so as not to be included in them, nor they in it, then are his intercession and sitting at the right hand of God so distinguished also. And thetruth is, the apostle, for our consolation, here proposeth distinctly all the offices of Christ in their most effectual acts, or the most eminent notations of them, and that in the proper order of their discharge and exercise. And whereas the acts of his sacerdotal office are so distinct, as that between them the interposition of the actings of his other offices was necessary, he begins and ends with them as the order of their exercise did require. For, 1. he died for us asa priest; then, 2. he rose, giving testimony to the truth as the prophet of the church. 3. He possessed actually his kingly power, sitting at the right hand of God; and, 4. there carrieth on the perpetual exercise of his priesthood by intercession. Wherefore there is nothing in these words, that should tacitly intimate an inclusion of any act of the kingly office, but it is expressed in a clear distinction from it, as an act quite of another nature. And it will, if I mistake not, be a very difficult task for these persons to manifest in any tolerably rational manner, how the intercession of Christ doth include in it an act of his kingly power. 2dly. It is frivolous, if by this tacitly comprehended, he intend that the intercession of Christ, which is an act of his priestly office, hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some act or acts of his kingly office. For such a mutual respect there is between the acts of all the offices of Christ and their effects. The oblation of Christ, which is an act of the priestly office is made effectual towards us by the mterposition of the exercise of his prophetical office, 2 Cor. v. 18—21; Eph. i. 14—17. And his teaching us as the prophet of the church, is made effectual by those supplies of his Spirit and grace, which are effects of his kingly power. Suppose, therefore, that the energy and operation of Christ’s kingly power, is put forth to make his intercession effectual towards us, in the way mentioned by Crellius, which yet in his sense is false; this proves not im the least, that his kingly power, or any act of it, is included in his intercession, which is so distinctly expressed. Wherefore, 4, that the apostle should here mention the kingly power of Christ, and name his intercession as the act thereof, seeing he nameth no other, is a fond imagination; for intercession in its proper nature both belongs to another office, and also it is peculiarly ascribed unto the Lord Christ, by our apostle, as a high priest and not as a king, Heb. vii. 95—27. The intercession of Christ as a priest, is ordamed of God as a means of making his sacrifice and oblation effectual, by the application of its virtue and efficacy unto us, and the actual communication of the truth of it is committed unto him as our Lord, Head, and King. For whereas all his offices being vested in the same person, and belonging all to the same general work of mediation, have all the same general end; it is impossible but that the acts of them must have mutual respect and relation to one another, but yet the offices themselves are formally distinct.
§ 7. He yet proceeds on the same argument unto another mstance. ‘ Jo-
hannes dum Christum Advocatum quem apud patrem habeamus, nominat, et eum simul expiationem pro peccatis nostris censeat, 1. censeri potest munus sacerdotale nobis descripsisse ubi 2. tamen regium munus non opponit. At cum ad 3. consolationem illam quam eo loco peccantibus proponit Johannes, plurimum pertineat scire Christum plenissimam habere peenas peceatorum a nobis auferendi potestatem, 4. tacite id in suis verbis inclusisse censendus est, 1 Joh. ἢ. 2.
Answ. Seeing he designed not to consider all the testimonies that are usually pleaded for the priestly office of Christ in the New Testament, 1 cannot but admire how he came to fix on this instance, which he can give no better countenance to his evasion from. For, 1. The apostle may not only be thought to describe the priestly office of Christ, but he doth it so expressly, as that the contrary cannot be insinuated with any respect to modesty. For the whole of the priestly office consists in oblation and intercession, both which are here distinctly ascribed unto him; and to describe an office by proper power and its duties, is more significant than to do it only by its name. Y. It is acknowledged that here is no mention made— of Christ's kingly power, and it must also be acknowledged that the things here ascribed unto Christ, do no way belong unto his kingly office. Hence it follows, undeniably, that the writers of the New Testament do distinguish these offices, and not include one of them in the other. Yea, but saith Crellius, 3. The ‘apostle is to be thought tacitly to include the kingly power of Christ 7 that is, although he mention it not, yet he ought to have done so, and therefore is to be thought to have intended what he did not express. That case is very desperate indeed which is only capable of such a defence as this. But there is good reason to think why the apostle ought so to do; that is, to do what indeed he did not, Crellius being judge. For, saith he, 4. ‘The full power that Christ hath to deliver us from the punishment due to sin, belongs unto that consolation which the apostle intended to give unto sinners. Answ. 1. I deny that the consideration of the power intended, did at all belong unto the consolation that the apostle designs for sinners; and that because neither directly nor indirectly it is mentioned by him. And he knew what belonged unto the consolation which he intended, better than Crellius did.. This, therefore, is but a direction given the apostle (though coming too late) as to what he ought to have written, and not an interpretation of what he wrote. 2. In proposing the expiatory oblation and intercession of Christ as the ground of our consolation, because they are the reasons, causes, and means of the forgiveness of our sins, the apostle had no occasion to mention the certain consequents thereof, such as is our deliverance from the punishment due to sin. 3. The power of Christ to take away sins, or to deliver us from the punishment due to sin, fancied by Crellius, is indeed no principle of evangelical consolation, nor doth belong t6 the kingly office of Christ, nor is consistent with the apostle’s present discourse, which lays our consolation on the real propitiation and intercession of Christ, both which are excluded by this imaginary power of taking away the penalty due to sin, absolutely, without respect to price, atonement, or satisfaction,
And these are all the places which he thought meet to consider in pursuance of his assertién, that all the ‘writers of the New Testament, excepting the author of this Epistle, did in a sort include the kingly and priestly offices of Christ, the one in the other, wherein how he hath acquitted himself is left to the judgment of the indifferent reader. It was not, I confess, improvidently dene of him to confine himself to the New Testament, considering, that in the Old, he is expressly called a priest, Ps. ex. 4, and that in conjunction with, and yet distinction from his regal power, Zech. vi. 12,13. As also he is said to have his soul made a sin-offering, and that when, in and under his suffering, he bare our iniquities, Isa. 111. 10, 11, whereby when he was cut off, he made reconciliation for imiquities, and brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan. ix. 24, 25. Sundry testimonies also of the New Testament before quoted, are utterly omitted by him, as those which will not by any means be compelled unto the least appearance of a compliance with his design. But these artifices are wanted to the cause. Only, I must add, that [ cannot but admire with what confidence our adversaries talk of the priesthood of Christ, of his offering himself an expiatory sacrifice, of his imtercession, when all these things, in the proper and only signification of the words, are expressly denied by them.
§ 8. Our author proceeds, in the next place, to give a reason of that which neither is, nor ever was, namely, why the holy writers do in some manner comprehend these offices one in the other; for they propose them to us distinctly as their nature doth require.
£ Neque vero immerito sacri Scriptores alterum officium in altero 1. quodammodo comprehendunt. Nam quicquid a Christo ut Sacerdote 2, 3. expectamus, id ab eo ut Rege reipsa proficisci dici potest. Sacerdotis est 4. peceata expiare et expurgare. Hoe fit dum 5. hostes Christi et nostri peccatum nempe ipsum, mors et qui mortis habet imperium Satanas destruuntur. At Christus hostes suos ac nostros debellat ac destruit ut Rex, 1 Cor. xv. 24—26; Phil. i. ult. 6. Sacerdotis est auxilium iis qui ad thronum gratize accedunt opportunum prestare, et afilictis prompte succurrere, Heb. il. 17, 18, iv. 15, 16. 7. Annon etiam Christi Regis est populo suo ad thronwm ipsius confugienti succurrere, et afilictis opem ferre?
Answ. 1. We observed before the looseness and ambiguity of that expression ‘quodammodo,’ or, after a sort. For if it signify any thing in this case, 10 is the application of the distinct energies and operations of these distinct offices unto the same end, wherein we own their agreement and concurrence. That which he should prove is, that they are one of them so contained in the other, as that they are not two distinct offices. 2. If whatever we expect from Christ as a priest, doth really proceed from him as a king, as here it is affirmed, then is his priesthood οὐδὲν αλλο πλὴν ονομα, a mere empty name, whereby no thing of any use or value is signified. 3. His arguments whereby he endeavours to prove, that the holy writers did not without cause, do that which indeed they did not at all, are sophistical, and inconclusive, not proving what himself intends. For, 1. what he says that we do expect from a priest, is sophistical. or it respects our present expectation of what is future; our hope, faith, and desire of what he will do for us. But this is but one part of the office and duty of a priest, yea that part which is expressly founded in what is done already. For Christ our high priest hath already expiated and purged our sins, and we have no expectation that he should do it again. He did by himself, that is, by the sacrifice of himself, purge our sins, and that before he sat down at the right hand of God, Heb. i. 3. And this he did once only, by his own sacrifice once offered, as we have proved. Wherefore, 2, 4, it is true that it belongeth unto a priest to expiate our sins and take them away. This we believe that Christ hath done for us as our high priest, but do not expect that he should do it any more, any otherwise but by the application unto us of the virtue and efficacy of what he hath already done. 3, 5. The description here given us of the expiation of sin, namely, that it consists in the actual subduing of Christ's enemies and ours, sin, death, and the devil, is absurd, dissonant from the common sense of mankind in these things, destructive to the whole nature of the types of the Old Testament, and contrary to the lain doctrine of the Scripture. This is a blessed consequent and fruit indeed of the expiation of our sins, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, when his soul was made an offering for sin, when he offered himself a sacrifice, a propitiation, price, and ransom, to make atonement and reconciliation for sin; but expiation itself consisteth not therein. These, therefore, we acknowledge that Christ effecteth by various actings of his kingly power; but all on a supposition of the atonement made hy him as a priest, with respect unto the guilt and demerit of sin. Hereby he obtained for us eternal redemption, and we have redemption in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. The things intended are therefore so distinct, that they prove the offices or powers from whence they proceed to be so aiso. For neither did Christ as a king expiate and purge our sins, which could be done only by a bloody sacrifice. Nor doth he as a priest subdue his enemies and ours, which is a work, whereunto the power of a king is required. | Nor hath he any better success in the next instance, as to encouragements of coming to the throne of grace. For (1. 6,) the throne of grace mentioned, Heb. iv. 16, is not the throne of Christ as a king, ‘his own throne, as it is here rendered by Crellius, but the throne of God, where Christ as a high priest maketh intercession for us. So that when he says, that it is the office of a priest to succour them who come to the throne of grace, and the part of Christ to relieve them who come for help to his throne, it is evident that he sophistically confounds the things that are to be distinguished. We go to the throne of God through the interposition of Christ as our high priest, our propitiation, and advocate; and we go to the throne of Christ as king of the church, on the account of the glorious power committed to him for our help and relief. Wherefore, 2, the encouragements we have to approach to the throne of grace, whereunto is our ultimate address, for help and relief from the priestly office and actings of Christ, are different and distinct from them which we have from his kingly office, as the actings of Christ with respect to the one and the other of those offices, are different and distinct. We go with boldness to the throne of grace, on account of Christ’s being our high priest, as he who by the oblation of himself hath procured admittance for us, and consecrated a new and living way for our access thereunto; as he who by his intercession procures us favourable audience, and speeds our requests with God; see our exposition on the place. Our expectation of relief and aid from the Lord Christ as the king of grace and glory on his throne, ariseth from that all-power in heaven and earth, which is given to him for that end. In brief, as a priest he interposeth with God for us; as a king, he acts from God towards us.
§ 9. His last attempt to the same purpose, is in the ensuing discourse.
‘Idem ex eo quoque apparet quod auctor divinus Epist. ad Heb. (1) locum illum Psalmi, filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te (4)’ad (5) sacerdotium Christi aperte refert, cap. v. 5, 6, et pontificiam ei dignitatem hac ratione a Deo concessam docet. At ea (6) de regno aperte loquuntur Nam. (2) David qui Christi typus,fuit explicat in iis verbis decretum Dei, quo rex, post diuturnum exilium reipsa fuit constitutus, et in solio regio collocatus, quemadmodum Psalmus inspectus quemvis docebit, unde ea Paulus Christo e mortuis resuscitato demum ait impleta, Act. xiii. 32, 33. Nam tum demum Deus secundum promissa sua regem dedit populo suo et Jesum constituit Dominum et Christum; seu quod idem est, filium Dei in potentia, Act. ii. 36; Rom. i. 4. Et idem hic Scriptor ad Hebreos, cap. i. 5, et istis verbis demonstrat prestantiam Christi supra angelos quam, ad dextram majestatis in excelsis collocatus, est adeptus. Quod si sacerdotium Christi a regia dignitate prorsus est distinctum, et Christus reipsa sacerdos fuit cum in cruce pateretur, imo tunc proprie sacerdotii munere functus est in coelo improprie, quomodo heec verba que de regia supremaque dignitate Christi loquuntur ad sacerdotium Christi accommodantur, quod tum revera fuerit peractum, cum Christus se maxime humiliavit, et minor apparuit angelis.’ Phil. ii. 8; Heb. ii. 8.
Answ. If it were determinately certain what he intends to prove, we might the better judge of the validity of his proofs and argument. But his limitation of ‘ quodammodo, videtur,’ and ‘ aliqua ex parte, leave it altogether uncertain what it is he designeth to evince. It is enough to our cause and purpose, if we manifest that nothing by him produced or insisted on, doth prove the kingly and priestly office of Christ to be the same, or that one of them is so comprehended in the other, as that they are not distinct in their powers, energies, and duties. And this is not done. For, 1. The words of the testimony out of the second Psalm, which is so variously applied by the apostles, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, do not formally express any one office of Christ, nor are used to that purpose. Only they declare the relation and love of the Father to his person, which was the foundation and reason of committing all that authority to him, which he exercised in all his offices, whereunto therefore they are applied. And therefore on several occasions doth God express the same thing in words very little varied, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5; 2 Pet. i. 17. For the declaration of Christ to be the eternal Son of God, is all that is intended in these words. 2. That these words were first used of David, and his exaltation to the throne of Isracl after his banishment, is easily said, but not so easily proyed.
Let our reader consult our exposition on ch. 1. ver. 5: 3. The call of Christ to his offices of king, priest, and prophet, as it respects the authority and love of the Father, was but one and the same. He had not a distinct call to each office, but was at once called to them all, as he was the Son of God sent and anointed to be the Mediator between God and man. The offices themselves, the gifts and graces to be exercised_in them, their powers, acts, and duties, were distinct, but his call to them all was the same. 4. The writer of this Epistle doth not accommodate these words to the priest} office of Christ, any otherwise but to evince that he was called of God to that office, on the ground of his relation to God and his love of him. For he produceth those words to declare who it was that called him, and why he did so; the call itself being expressed as respecting the priesthood in the other testimony: ‘Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. Wherefore there is not in these words any expression of the priesthood of Christ; see the exposition of the place. 5. These words are most eminently applied to the resurrection of Christ, Acts xii. 32, 33. Now this principally belonged to his prophetical office, as that whereby the truth of the doctrine he had taught was invincibly confirmed. And you may by this means as well overthrow the distinction between his kingly and prophetical offices, as between his kingly and sacerdotal. But the reason why it is accommodated to the Lord Christ with respect to either of his offices, is because his relation to God therein expressed, was the ground of them all. 6. What if Crellius cannot prove that these words of the Psalmist have any respect to the kingly office of Christ. I deny at present that he can do so, and refer the reader for his satisfaction herein to the exposition of them as quoted by the apostle, ch. 1. 5.
7. These words whereby he enlargeth herein, ‘That then when Christ was raised from the dead, God gave unto his people a king according to his promises, and appointed Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, or which is the same, the Son of God in power, for which Acts 11. 36: Rom. i. 4, are urged, are partly ambiguous and sophistical, and partly false. For, 1. The things mentioned in those places are not the same.* In the one it is said, that ‘God made him both Lord and Christ; in the other, that he ‘ was declared to be the Son of God with power. And he doth woefully prevaricate when he so repeats the words, as if it were said that he was made or appointed to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection, when he was only publicly determined or declared so to be. 2. He insinuates that Jesus was not made Lord and Christ, or the Son of God, until after his resurrection. But this is openly false. For, 1. He was born both Lord and Christ, Luke ii. 11. 2. When he came into the world, the angels worshipped him as Lord and Christ, Heb. i.6. 3. Peter confessed him before to be Christ the Son of the living God, Matt. xvi. 16. 4. He often affirmed, that all things before were given unto his hand, Matt. xi. 27. 5. If it were so, the Jews only crucified Jesus, and not Christ the Lord, or only him that was so to be afterwards, which is false and blasphemous. It is true, upon his ascension, not immediately on his resurrection, he was gloriously exalted into the illustrious exercise of his kingly power; but he was our Lord and King before his death. And therein also,
8. From what hath been spoken, it is easy to know what is to be re-. turned to the conclusion that he makes of this argument. For the words produced in testimony, are not spoken immediately concerning any office of Christ whatever, as expressive of it; much less concerning his regal dignity in a peculiar manner. And God was no less the Father of Christ, he was no less begotten of him, when he was humbled to death in the sacrifice of himself that he offered asa priest, than when he was exalted in glory at the right hand of the Majesty on high.,
§ 10. From this attempt to prove, that the sacerdotal office of Christ is comprehended in the regal by the divine writers, Crellius proceeds to show what differences there are indeed between them, and hereof he giveth sundry instances. But he might have spared that labour. This one would have sufficed; namely, that the Lord Christ is a king really and properly, he is a priest “only metaphorically: that is, he is not so indeed, but is called so improperly, because of some allusion between what he did, and what was done by the priests of old; as believers are called kings and priests. A man would think this were difference enough, as amounting to no less but that Christ is a king indeed, but not a priest. There was therefore no need he should take the 1 pains to "find out, indeed to coin differences between two such offices, whereof one is, and the other is not. And all the differences he fixeth on, the first only excepted, whereunto some pretence may be given, are merely feigned, or drained out of some other false hypothesis of the same author. However, it may not be amiss, seeing we have designed the vindication of this office of Christ from the whole opposition that is made to it by this sort of men, to examine a little these differences he assigns between the real and supposed office of Christ, which he makes use of to no other end but to annihilate the latter of them.
§ 11. ‘Distincto autem inter regium et sacerdotale munus primum in 60 cernitur, quod regium munus latius se porrigit quam sacerdotium; unde illus etiam crebrior fit mentio. Regis enim est etiam punire; sacerdotis vero tantum peccata populi expiare.’
Answ. This may be granted as one difference in the exercise of the power of these offices. For the kingly power of Christ is extended to his enemies, the stubbornest of them and those who are finally so. But Christ is a priest offered and intended only for the elect. But he might also have instanced in sundry other acts of the kingly Ὁ power of Christ, as namely his law-giving, his universal protection of his people, his rule and govern- | ment of the church by his Spirit and Word, which belong not at all to his priestly office. But this was not to his purpose, nor doth he design to evince any real difference between these two offices. For it is plain, that he opposeth punishing and expiating sin, the one to the other, assigning the former to the kingly, the latter to the sacerdotal office. But if to expiate sin, be only to remove and take away the punishment of sin, which is contrary to punishing, then Crellius maintains that Christ doth this by virtue of his kingly power and office. The sum therefore of this difference amounts to no more but this, that the Lord Christ as a king, and by virtue of his regal power, doth hoth punish sin and take the punishment of it, only he _ doth the latter as a priest, that is, there is an allusion in what he doth, to what was done for the people by the priests of old.
We adds another difference. (1) ‘Deinde cum Christum regem appellamus, 60 ipso nisi quid addamus aliud, nec (2) exprimimus eum hance potestatem aliunde accepisse, et quicquid beneficii ab ipso ut rege nostro proficiscitur (3) id totum Deo qui hane ei potestatem largitus fuerit, ascribendum esse. (4) Regium enim munus et nomen per se nil tale indicat cum Deus etiam. rex sit οἱ dicatur, Matt. v. 35. At cum Christum sacerdotem yocamus, el (5) oblationem et interpellationem - tribuimus, e€0 ipso indicamus peecator um nostrorum remissionem non ab ipso ut prima causa sed a Deo proficisci, et eum potestatem peccata nostra remittendi a seipso
non habere (6) nec esse supremum omnium rectorem. (6) Quomodo enim offerret et interpelleret apud alium et sacerdotis munere fungeretur ad remissionem nobis parandam? Quare dum sacerdotis nomine insignitur a Deo altissimo (7) cui alias potestate eequalis est, aperte distinguitur, et Dei pra ipso prerogativa atque eminentia indicatur, que facile ob tantam Christi prestantiam et gloriam qua ipsum Deus auxit, obscurari posset et sic Deo gloria illa quam in Christo exaltando queesivit eripi.
Answ. 1. Here is neither difference, nor pretence of any difference between these offices of Christ assigned in these words, nor doth this discourse seem to be introduced for any other end, but only to make way for that sophistical objection against the deity of Christ wherewith it is closed. For whatever notion the first sound of these words, king and priest, may represent to the minds of any prejudiced person, in reality Christ doth not less depend on God with respect to his kingly office, than with respect to his priestly, which Crellius also doth acknowledge. 2. When we call Christ Lord and king, we consider both who and what he is, and thereby dg conceive and express his being appointed to that office by God the Father. And of all men, the Socinians have the least cause to fear, that, on the naming of Christ as king, they should conceive him to be independent of God; for believing him to be aman and no more, there cannot possibly an imagination thereof befal.their minds. 3. It is not what we express where we call Christ a King, but what the Scripture declareth con- _ cerning that office of his, which we are to consider. And therein it is con-. stantly affirmed and expressed, that God made him both Lord and Christ; that all his power was given of God; that he sets him his king on the holy hill of Sion, and gives him to be head over all to the church. Wherefore, to call and name Christ our King, and not at the same time to apprehend him as being appointed of God so to be, is to renounce that only notion of his being so, which is revealed to us, and is a folly which never any Chris-, tian fell into. Wherefore, when we call Christ King, we do acknowledge that he is made so of God, who consequently is the author and principal. Cause of all the good and blessed effects which we are made partakers of, through the administration of the kingly office and power of Christ, nor did ever any sober person fall into an imagination to the contrary, seeing none can do so without an express renunciation of the Scripture. 4. When God absolutely considered is said to be King, the subject of the proposition limits and determines the sense. For the nature of him which is represented unto us under that name, God, will not allow that he should be so any otherwise but on account of his infinite essentially divine power, which the notion of Christ as Mediator doth not represent to us. 5. The reasons taken from what is ascribed to the Lord Christ as a priest, to prove that in our notion and conception of that office, we look on him as delegated by God, and acting power for us on that account, are, although true in themselves, yet frivolous as to his purpose, because all these acts, duties, and powers of his kingly office, do affirm and prove the same. Christ hath all his power, both as king and priest, equally from God the Father; was equally called of God to act in both these offices, in his name, majesty, and authority towards us in one of them, and with or before him on our behalf in the other. 6. Whereas he adds and enlargeth thereon, that by the oblation and intercession of Christ, which are ascribed to him as a priest, it is evident that he hath not power of or from himself to pardon our sins, as also that he is not the supreme Rector, but is distinguished from the most high God, to whom otherwise he is equal in authority: I ask, 1. Whether
Christ as a king hath power of himself, and from himself, to take away sin as the supreme Rector of all, and that power not delegated to him of God? T know he will not say so, nor any of his party, and therefore the difference between these two offices on that account, is merely pretended. 2. To make the Lord Christ, whom they will haye to be a man only, to be equal in power onany account with God, is a bold assertion. How shall any creature be equal in any respect to God? To whom shall we equal him? How can he who receiveth power from another for a certain end, be equal in power to that other from whom he doth receive it? How shall he who acts in the name of another, be equal unto him? But these great expressions are used concerning things which are false, only to cover the sacrilege of taking that from him, wherein he was truly equal to God, and counted no © robbery so to be. 3. It is confessed that the Lord Christ, as the high priest of the church, was inferior to God, that his Father was greater than he, that he offered himself unto God, and intercedeth with him; but that he is not equal with God, of the same nature with him under another consideration, this proveth not. And on the other side, there is not the least danger that the prerogative of God absolutely considered with ‘respect to Christ as Mediator, should” be obscured by the glory of the kingly office of Christ, among them who acknowledge that all the glory and power of it is freely given unto him of God.
He yet proceeds: ‘ Accedit quod cum Christus sacerdos dicitur, et quidem talis qui seipsum obtulerit, et mors ipsius, sine qua offerre se non potuit apertius includitur, quam regni mentio nullo pacto complectitur; (2) et cum ipsius admodum tenera et solicita cura quam pro nobis gerit, et qua expiationem peccatorum nostrorum perficit, magis quam regii nominis mentione indicatur. Unde non parum consolationis ex divina Christi potestate nobis accedit (3) que alias magnitudine et sublimitate sua vilitatem nostram absterrere potuisset, quo minus tanta cum animi fiducia ad ipsum confugere, et opem ab ipso expectare auderemus.’
Answ. Ist. How, according to the judgment of these men, the death of Christ is more openly and plainly inciuded in his being called a priest, than in his being a king, I know not. For he was not, if we may believe them, a priest in his death, nor did his death belong to his discharge of that office; only they say it was necessarily antecedent thereunto. But.so also was it unto the discharge of his kingly office. For he‘ ought first to suffer and then to enter into his glory, Luke xxiv. 26. And his exaltation to his glorious rule was not only consequent to his humiliation and suffering, or to his death, but did also depend thereon, Rom. xiv. 9; Phil. ii. 7—11. Wherefore, with respect to the antecedent necessity of the death of Christ, there is no difference between these offices, it being equal with regard to them both. Had he placed the difference between these two offices with respect to the death of Christ herein, that Christ as a priest died and offered himself therein unto God, which no way belonged unto his kingly office, he had spoken the truth, but that which was destructive toall his pretensions. For what is here asserted constitutes no difference at all between them. 2d. It is acknowledged that the consideration of the priesthood of Christ, bespeaks much care and tenderness towards the church, which is a matter of great consolation to us. But, Ist. It is so when this care and tenderness are looked on as the effects and fruits of that love which he manifested and exercised, when in his death he offered himself a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins, and continueth to intercede for us, thereby rendering his oblation effectual. Herein doth the Scripture constantly place the love of Christ, and thence instructs us in his tender care and compassion thence arising, Ephes. v. 25—27; Gal. 11, 20; Rev. 1. 5. Remove this consideration of the priesthood of Christ, which is done by these men, and you take away the foundation and spring of that care and tenderness in him towards us a priest, whereby we should be,relieved and refreshed. Wherefore, 2d. This consideration is nowhere proposed to us, as that which ariseth absolutely from the office itself, but from what, out of his unspeakable love, he underwent and suffered in the discharge of that office. For being therein exercised with all sorts of temptations, and undergoing all sorts of sufferings, he is merciful and tender in the discharge of the remaining duties of this office. See Heb. ii. 17, and iv. 15, 16, and v. 2, 8, with our exposition on those places. Ido not therefore see, that they who deny that Christ suffered any thing in being our high priest, can, from the consideration of the priesthood, draw any other arguments of his care and tenderness, than what may be.taken from his other offices. 2d. Christ as a king absolutely considered, with respect to his sufferings, is no less tender to, no less careful of his church, than he is as he is a priest, his love and other qualifications for all his offices being the same; only his preparations for’ the exercise of his care and tenderness by what he suffered as a priest, makes the difference in this matter, the consideration whereof being removed, there remains none at all. To conceive of Christ asthe king of his church, and not to conceive withal that every thing in him as such, is suited to the consolation and encouragement of them that do believe, is highly to dishonour him. He is as aking, the shepherd of his flock; his pastoral care belonging to his kingly office; as kings of old were called the shepherds of their people. But in his rule and feeding of the church as a shepherd, he is proposed as exercising all manner of care and tenderness, as the nature of the office doth require, Isa. xl. 10,11. 3d. It is a fond imagination that believers should be frighted or deterred from going to Christ as a king, because of their own vileness and his glorious dignity, seeing that glorious dignity was conferred on him, on purpose to relieve us from our vileness. There is no office of Christ but containeth its encouragements in it, for believers to make use of it and improve it to their consolation; and that because the ground of all their hopes and comforts is in his person, and im that love and care, which he exerts in them all. But that we should consider any one of them as a means of encouraging us with respect unto another, the Scripture teacheth us not, any otherwise than as the effects of his priestly office in his oblation and intercession, are the fundamental reasons of the communication of the blessed effects of his kingly power to us. For all the benefits we are made partakers of by him flow from hence, that ‘he loved us, and gave himself for us,washing us in his own blood.’ Even the glorious greatness. of God himself, which, absolutely considered, is enough to deter us as we are sinners from approaching to him, as he is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, is a firm foundation of trust, confidence, and consolation; and therefore the glory of Christ in his kingly power, must needs be so also.
He closeth his discourse in these words: ‘Quare hee quoque fuit causa
hujus, 1. appellationis Christo tribuende; ut 2. omittam multas similitudines que Christo cum sacerdote legali et Melchisedeco, qui itidem fuit sacerdos Dei altissimi intercedunt; que huic appellationi causam dederunt; quibus etiam addenda est similitudo multiplex cum victimis legalibus.’
Answ. Here, Ist. The whole design is plainly expressed. There is the name of a priest for some certain reasons attributed unto Christ, whereas, truly and really he never had any such office, from whence he might be so denominated. And this is that which in this whole discoure I principally designed to evince. 2d. To say that Christ was called a priest, from that likeness which was in sundry things (not in the office of the priesthood and execution thereof) to the legal high priest, to Melchisedec, and to the sacrifices of the law, is only to beg or suppose the thing in question. They were all instituted and made priests, and all their sacrifices were offered principally to this end, that they might prefigure and represent him as the only true high priest of the church, with that sacrifice of himself which he offered for it. And without this consideration, there would never have ’ been any priest in the world of God’s appointment. And this is the whole of what this man pleads, either directly, or by sophistical diversions, to confound these two offices of Christ, and thereby, utterly to evacuate his sacerdotal. Wherefore, before I proceed to remove his remaining exceptions unto the truth and reality of this office, I shall confirm the real difference that is between it and the kingly office, in confounding it wherewithal, the strength of their whole endeavour against it doth consist.
§ 12. The offices of king and priest may be considered either absolutely, or as they respect our Lord Jesus Christ. In the first way it will not be denied but that they are distinct. The one of them is founded in nature, the other in grace. The one belongs unto men as creatures capable of political society, the other with respect unto their supernatural end only. It is true that the same person was sometimes vested with both these offices, as was Melchisedec. And the same usage prevailed among the heathens, as we shall see afterwards more at large.
Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum Phebique Sacerdos.
But this hinders not but that the offices were thus distinct in their powers and duties, as the regal and prophetical were, when David was both king and prophet. But our inquiry is at present concerning these offices in Christ only, whether they were both proper and distinct, or one of them comprised in the other, being but a metaphorical expression of the manner of the exercise of its powers and duties. And concerning this we may consider,
Ist. He is absolutely, and that frequently, called a priest, or a high priest, in the Old Testament and in the New. This was demonstrated in the entrance of these exercitations. Now the notion or nature of the priest, and the office of the priesthood, or what is signified by them, are plainly declared in the Scripture, and that in compliance with the unanimous apprehension of mankind concerning them. For that the office of the priesthood is that faculty and power whereby some persons do officiate with God in the name and on the behalf of others, by offering sacrifice; all men in general are agreed. And thereon it is consented also, that it is in its entire nature distinct from the kingly power and office, the first conception of which, speaks a thing of another kind. Now, whereas the Scripture doth absolutely and frequently declare to us that Christ is a priest, it doth nowhere intimate that his priesthood was of another kind, than what it had in general declared it to be in all others; and what all men generally apprehended of it. If any other thing were intended thereby, men must unavoidably be drawn into errors and mistakes. Nor doth it serve to undeceive us, that some come now and tell us, that the Scripture by that name intends no such distinct office, but only the especial qualifications of Christ for the discharge of his kingly power, and the manner of his acting or exercising thereof. Tor the
Scripture itself says no such things, but, as we shall see immediately, gives plain testimony to the contrary.
2. His first solemn type was both a king and a priest, and he was so as to both of these offices properly. He was not a king properly, and a high priest only metaphorically, or so called, because of his careful and merciful administration of the kingly power committed to him. But he had the office of the priesthood properly and distinctly vested in him, as both Moses and our apostle do declare, Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. vii. 1. And he was more peculiarly a type of Christ as he was a priest, than as he was a king. For he is said to be a priest, and not a king, after the order of Melchisedec. Therefore, that consideration of him is reassumed by the Psalmist, and by our apostle, and not the other. And it is not uncouth that God, designing to prefigure one that should be a priest metaphorically only, and properly a king, should do it in and by one person, who was a priest no less properly than he was a king, and in his so being, was peculiarly and principally designed to prefigure him? Who can learn any thing of the mind of God determinately, if his declarations thereof may be thus interpreted?
3. In the giving of the law, God did renew and multiply the instructive types and representations of these offices of Christ. And herein, in the first place, he takes care to teach the church, that he whom all those things which he then did institute, did signify, was to bea priest. For of any prefiguration of his kingly power, there is very little spoken in the law. I ‘shall at present take that for granted, which I have sufficiently proved elsewhere, and which is not only positively affirmed, but proved with many arguments by our apostle, namely, that the principal end of Mosaical institution was to prefigure, represent, and instruct the church, though darkly, in the nature of the offices, work, and duties of the promised Messiah. This being so, if the Lord Christ were to be a priest only metaphorically and improperly, and a king properly, (his priesthood beingincluded in his kingly office, and signifying no more but the manner of his administration thereof,) how comes it to pass that his being a priest should be taught and represented so fully and distinctly in so many ordinances, by so many types and figures as it is, and his kingly power be scarce imtimated at all. For there is no mention of any typical kings in the law, but only in the allowance which God gave the people, to choose such a ruler in future times, wherein he made provision for what he purposed to do afterwards, Deut. xvii. 14, 15. Moreover, when God would establish a more illustrious typical representation of his kingly office in the family of David, to manifest that these two offices should be absolutely distinct in him, he so ordained in the law, that it should be ever afterwards impossible that the same person should be both king and priest, until he came, who was typified by both. For the kingly office and power was confined by divine institution to the house and family of David, as that of the priesthood was to the family of Aaron. If these offices had been to be one and the same in Christ, these institutions had not instructed the church in what was to come.
4. A distinct office is a distinct power and faculty for the performance of its acts, ina due manner, with respect to a certain end. And these things whereby it is constituted, are distinct in the kingly and _ priestly offices of Christ. For,.
1. Moral powers and acts are distinguished by their objects. But the object of all the actings of the sacerdotal power of Christ, is God; of the regal, men, For every priest, as we haye shown, acts in the name, and on the behalf of men with God. But a king, in the name and on the behalf of God, with and towards men, as to the ends of that rule which God hath ordained. The priest represents men to God pleading their cause, the king represents God to men acting his power. Wherefore, these being distinct powers, or faculties, duties, and acts, they prove the offices whereunto they do belong, or from which they proceed, to be distinct also. And this consideration demonstrates a greater difference between these two offices, than between the kingly and prophetical, seeing, by virtue of them both, some men equally act in the name of God towards others. But that the priesthood of Christ is exercised towards God on the behalf of men, and that therein the formal nature of any priesthood doth consist, whereby it is effectually distinguished from all other offices and powers that any men are capable of, we have the common consent of mankind to prove the institution of God under the Old Testament, with express testimonies in the New confirming the same.
2. As the acts of these offices are distinguished by ‘their objects, so also are they and their azorekeopara, between themselves or in their own nature. The acts of the sacerdotal office operate morally, only by way of procurement or acquisition. Those of the regal office are physical, and really operative of their effects. For all the acts of the priestly office belong to oblation or intercession. And their effects consist, either in ‘ Averruneatione mali,’ or ¢ Procuratione boni.’ These they effect morally only, by procuring and obtaining of them. The acts of the kingly office are legislation, communication of the Spirit, helps, aids, assistances of grace, destruction of enemies, and the like. But these are all physically operative of their effects. Wherefore, the offices whence they proceed, must be distinct in their natures, as they also are. And what hath been spoken, may suffice at present to evince the difference between these two offices of Christ, which those men are the first that ever called into doubt or controversy.
§ 13. I shall close this discourse with the consideration of an attempt of Crellius, to vindicate his doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ, from an objection of Grotius against it, namely, that it ‘diminished the glory of Christ, in ascribing to him only a figurative priesthood.’ For hereunto he answers, 1. By way 6f concession, that ‘indeed they allow Christ to be a priest metaphorically only, as believers are said to be kings and _ priests, and to offer sacrifices.’ Now this is plainly to deny any such real office, which sometimes they would not seem to do, and to substitute an external denomination in the room thereof. What are the consequents hereof, and what a pernicious aspect this hath upon the faith and consolation of all believers, is left to the judgment of all who concern themselves in these things. 2. He answers, ‘That although they deny the Lord Christ to be a priest properly so called, yet the dignity which they ascribe to him. under that name and title, is not metaphorical but real, and a greater dignity than their adversaries will allow.’ For the latter clause, or who it is that ascribe most glory and honour to Jesus Christ, according as that duty is prescribed to us in the Scripture, both with respect to his person, his mediation, and all his offices, with the benefits redounding to the church thereby, they or we, is left to every impartial or unprejudiced judgment in the world. For the former, the question is not, about what dignity they assign to Christ, nor about what names or titles they think meet to give him, but about the real honour of the priesthood. That this is an honour in itself, that it was so to