If Christ had it not, then had Aaron a real honour which he had not, and therein was preferred above him. But, saith he, ‘ Although he is compared with Aaron, and his priesthood opposed unto his, and preferred above it, yet it is not in things of the same kind, though expressed under the same name, whereby things more perfect and heavenly are compared with things earthly and imperfect. But, 1. This leaves the objection in its full force. For, whatever dignity Christ may have in other things above Aaron, yet in the honour of the priesthood Aaron was preferred before him, for it is a real priesthood which the prophet asserts to be so honourable. And, although a person who hath it not, may have a dignity of another kind, which may be more honourable than that of the priesthood, yet if he have not that also, he therein comes behind him that hath it. 2. It is true, where things fall under the same appellations, some properly and some metaphorically only, those of the latter sort, though they have not so good a title as the other to the common name whereby they are called, yet may they in their own nature be more excellent than they. But this is only when the things properly so called have notable defects and imperfections accompan ying of them. But this consideration hath here no place; for the real office of the priesthood includes nothing in it that is weak or impotent, nor are the acts of it in any thing inferior to what may be fancied as metaphorical. And, whereas the dignity of all the mediatory actings of Christ are to be taken from the efficacy of them, and their tendency to the glory of God, and the salvation of the church, it is evident that those which are assigned to him as the acts of a real priesthood, are far more worthy and honourable than what they ascribe unto him, under the metaphorical notion of that office. 3. If the priesthood of Christ is not opposed as such to the priesthood of Aaron, on what grounds, or from what principles doth our apostle argue to the abolishing of the priesthood of Aaron, from the introduction of that of Christ, plainly asserting an inconsistency between them in the church at the same time. For there is no such opposition nor inconsistency, where the offices intended are not both of them properly so, but one of them is only metaphorically so called. So, there is no inconsistency in the continuance of the kingly office of Christ, which is real; and all believers being made kings in a sense only metaphorical.
§ 14. But Valentinus Smalcius will inform us of the original and occasion of all our mistakes about the priesthood of Christ, De Regn. Christ. cap. 23. ‘Quo porro figurate loquendi nimio studio factum est, ut etiam de Christo dicatur eum apud Deum pro nobis interpellare, &c. ‘It was out of an excessive desire’ (in the Holy Ghost or the apostles) ‘ to speak figuratively, that Christ is said to intercede for us; and consequently, to bea priest.’ But he afterwards makes an apology for the Holy Spirit of God, why he spake in so low and abject a manner concerning Christ. And this was the care he took that none should believe him to be God. We have had some among ourselves, who have traduced and reproached other men for the use of fulsome metaphors, as they call them, in the expression of sacred things, though evidently taken out of the Scripture; but this man alone hath discovered the true fountain of that miscarriage, which was the excessive desire of the holy writers to speak figuratively, lest any one should believe Jesus Christ to be God, from the things that really belong to him.
OF THE ACTS OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST, THEIR OBJECT, WITH THE TIME AND PLACE OF ITS EXERCISE.
$1. The acts and adjuncts of the priesthood of Christ proposed to consideration. The acts of it two in general, oblation and intercession. Variety of concessions in general, ambiguous words, whilst their sense is undetermined. § 2, The true nature of the oblation of Christ. Opinion of the Socinians concerning it. § 3. The nature of his intercession, with their conceptions about it. § 4. Things proposed unto a further discussion. ᾧ 5. The time and place of Christ’s susception and discharge of the office of the priesthood. § 6. The first argument for the time of the exercise of this office taken from the concession of the adversaries. § 7. The second from the effect of his sacrifice in making atonement, and the prefiguration thereof in the sacrifices of the law. § 8. Thirdly, from his entrance into heaven as a high priest with respect to the sacrifice he had offered. § 9. Fourthly, other priests who entered not into the sanctuary, types of Christ in their office and sacrificing, vindicated from the exception of Crellius. § 10. The account given of the priesthood of Christ by Valentinus Smalcius examined. § 11. The arguings of Woolzogenius to the same purpose. § 12. The boldness and impiety of Smalcius reproved. § 13. God the immediate object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ. ᾧ 14. Proved and vindicated from the exceptions of Crellius.
§ 1. Havine declared and vindicated the nature of the sacerdotal office of our Lord Jesus Christ, it remaineth that we consider the acts of it distinctly, with some of the most important adjuncts of its exercise. And. it is not so much the dogmatical declaration of these things that I design, which also hath already been sufficiently discharged, as the vindication of them from the perverse senses put upon-them by the Socinians.
The general acts of the Lord Christ as the high priest of the church are two, namely, oblation and intercession. These the nature of the office in general doth require, and these are constantly assigned unto him in the Scripture. But concerning the nature, efficacy, season, use, or end of these, there is no agreement between us and the Socinians. And I know not that there is any thing of the like nature fallen out among those who profess themselves to be Christians, wherein persons fully agreeing in the same words and expressions, as they and we do in this matter, should yet really disagree, and that to the greatest extremity of difference about every thing signified by them, as we do herein. And this sufficiently discovers the vanity of all attempts to reconcile the differing parties among Christians by a confession of faith, composed in such general words and terms, as that each party may safely subscribe and declare their assent unto. Neither is the insufficiency of this design relieved by the additional advice, that this confession be composed wholly out of the Scriptures, and of expressions therein used. For it is not an agreement in words and the outward sound of them, but the belief and profession of the same truths or things, that is alone to be valued, all that is beyond such an agreement being left at peace in the province of mutual forbearance. An agreement in words only, parrots may learn; and such an agreement will be better amongst them, than amongst men, because they have no mind to act dissenting and contradicting principles. But for men to declare their assent unto a certain form of words, and in the meantime in their minds and understandings expressly to judge and condemn the faith and apprehensions of one another about these very things, is a matter that no way tends to the union, peace, or edification of the church. For instance, suppose a form of words expressing in general that Christ was a high priest, that the acts of the priesthood being oblation and intercession, Christ in hke manner’ offered himself to God, and maketh intercession for us, that hereby he purgeth, expiateth, and doth away our sins, with many more expressions to the same purpose, should be drawn up and subscribed by the Socinians and their adversaries, as they can safely do on all hands, will this in the least further any agreement or unity between us, whilst we not only disagree about the sense of all these terms and expressions, but believe that things absolutely distant and inconsistent with one another, yea destructive of one another, are intended in them? But thus it really is between us herein, as the farther considera-. tion of particulars will manifest.
§ 2. First. The oblation of Christ is that act or duty of his sacerdotal oitice whereby he offered himself, soul and body, or his whcle human nature, an expiatory sacrifice to God in his death and blood-shedding, to make atonement for the sins of mankind, and to purchase for them eternal redemption. So that, 1. The nature of the oblation of Christ consisted in a bloody expiatory sacrifice, making atonement for sin, by bearing the punishment due thereunto. And, 2. As to the efficacy of it, it hath procured for us pardon of sin, freedom from the curse, and eternal redemption. 3. The time and place when and wherein Christ as our high priest thus offered himself a sacrifice to God, was in the days of his flesh, whilst he was yet in this world, by his suffering in the garden, but especially on the cross.
Hor the application of the effects of this oblation of Christ unto the church, and the completing of all that was fore-signified as belonging thereunto, it was necessary that as our high priest he should enter into the holy place, or the presence of God in the heavens, there to represent himself as having done the will of God, and finished the work committed to him; whereon the actual efficacy of his oblation, or the communication of the fruits of it to the church, according to the covenant between the Father and the Son before described, doth depend.
In all these things the Socinians wholly dissent from us; what they conceive about the nature of the office itself hath been already called to an account. For this act or duty of it they apprehend, 1. That the expiatory oblation or sacrifice ascribed to the Lord Christ as a high priest, is nothing but his ‘ presenting of himself alive, in the presence of God. This therefore, 2. they say he did after his resurrection, upon his ascension into heaven, when he had revealed the will of God, and testified the truth of his ministry with his death, which was necessary to his ensuing oblation. 8. That his expiation of our sins consists in the exercise of that power which he is intrusted withal upon this offering of himself, to free us from the punishment due unto them. 4. That this presentation of himself in heaven might be called his offering of himself, or an expiatory sacrifice, it was necessary that antecedently thereunto he should die for the ends mentioned. For if he had not so done there would haye been no allusion between his care and power in heaven which he exerciseth towards the church, and the actings of the high priest of old in their oblations and sacrifices, and so no _ ground or reason why what he did and doth should be called the offering of himself. Wherefore this is the substance of what they affirm in this matter. he place of Christ’s offering himself was in heaven in the glorious presence of God; the time of it, after his ascension; the nature of it, a presenting himself in the presence of God, as one who, having declared his name, and done his will, was gloriously exalted by him; the whole efficacy hereof being an effect of that power which Christ hath received as exalted to deliver us from sin. '
In this imaginary oblation the death of Christ hath no part nor interest. They say indeed it was previously necessary thereunto; but this seems but a mere pretence, seeing it is not intelligible on their principles how it should so be. For they affirm that Christ did not offer in heaven that very body wherein he suffered on the tree, but a new spiritual body that was prepared for him unto that end. And what necessity is there that one body should suffer and die that another might be presented in heaven. The principal issues whereunto these differences between them and us may be reduced, shall be declared and insisted on.
§ 3. The sacred duty of the priestly office is intercession. How fre- ᾿" quently this also is ascribed unto the Lord Christ as a high priest, hath been declared before. Now intercession is of two sorts: 1. Formal and oral. 2. Virtual and real. 1. There is a formal oral intercession, when any one by words, arguments, supplications, with humble earnestness in their use, prevails with another for any good thing that is in his power to be bestowed on himself or others. Of this nature was the intercession of Christ whilst he was on the earth. He dealt with God by prayers and supplications, sometimes with cries and tears, with respect to himself in the work he had undertaken, but principally for the church of his elect, Heb. v. 7; John xvii. This was his intercession as a priest whilst he was on the earth; namely, his interposition with God by prayers and supplications suited unto the state wherein he was, for the application of the benefits of his mediation unto the church, or the accomplishment of the promises made unto him upon his undertaking the work of redemption. 2. Virtual or real intercession differs not in the substance or nature of it from that which is oral and formal, but only in. the outward manner of its performance, with respect unto the reasons of it as now accomplished. When Christ was upon the earth, his state and condition rendered it necessary that his intercession should be by way of formal supplications, and that as to the argument of it, it should respect that which was for to come; his oblation, which is both the procuring cause of all good things interceded for, and the argument to be pleaded for their actual communication, being not yet completed. But now in heaven the state and condition of Christ admitting of no oral or formal supplications, and the ground, reason, or argument of his intercession being finished and past, his intercession, as the means of the actual impetration of grace and glory, consists in the real representation of his offering and sacrifice for the procuring of the actual communication of the fruits thereof, unto them for whom he so offered himself. The whole matter of words, prayers, and supplications, yea of internal conceptions of the mind, formed into prayers, is but accidental to intercession, attending the state and condition of him that intercedes. The real entire nature of it consists in the representation of such things as may prevail in the way of motive, or procuring cause, with respect unto the things interceded for. And such do we affirm the intercession of Christ as our high priest in heaven to be.
It is no easy matter to apprehend aright what our adversaries judge concerning this duty of the priesthood of Christ. The expression, they all say, is figurative, and will not allow any real intercession of Christ, although the Scriptures so expressly lay the weight of our consolation, preservation, and salvation thereon, Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25—27; 1 John 11. 2; Neither are they agreed what is signified by it. That which mostly they agree on, is that it is a word used to declare that the power which Christ exerciseth in heaven was not originally his own, but was granted to him of God, and therefore the good that by virtue thereof he doth to and for the church, is so expressed as if he obtained it of God by intercession. And it is I confess strange to me, that what the Holy Ghost left the weight of our consolation and salvation on, should be no more but a word signifying that the power which Christ exerciseth in heaven for the good of his church, was not originally his own, but was conferred on him by God after his ascension into heaven.
§ 4. From what hath been discoursed, it is evident how great and wide the difference is between us about these things; which yet are the things wherein the life of our faith is concerned. And so resolved are they in their own sentiments, that they will not admit of such terms of reconciliation as may be tendered to them, if in any thing they intrench thereon; for whereas Grotius premised to his discourse on this subject, ‘constat nobis ac Socino de voce Christi mortem fuisse sacrifictum expiatorium, id ipsum clare testante divina ad Hebreos Epistola; ‘ We are agreed with Socinus as to the name, that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice, as is clearly testified in the Epistle to the Hebrews.’ Crellius renounceth any such concessions in Socinus, and tells Grotius how greatly he is mistaken in that supposition, seeing both he and they do perfectly deny that the death of Christ was the expiatory sasrifice mentioned in that Epistle, cap. x. part 1. p- 472. Now it is evident that these things cannot be handled unto full satisfaction without a complete discussion of the true nature of the sacrifice of Christ. But this is not my present design, nor shall I engage in it in these Exercitations. The proper seat of the doctrine thereof is in the 9th and 10th chapters of this Epistle. If God will, and we live to arrive thereunto, all things concerning them shall be handled at large. Only there are some things which belong peculiarly to the office itself under consideration. These we shall separate from what concerns the nature of the sacrifice, and vindicate from the exceptions of our adversaries. And they are referred unto the ensuing heads.
]. The time and place when and where the Lord Christ entered on and principally discharged the office of his priesthood.
2. The immediate proper object of all his sacerdotal actings, which haying been stated before must now be vindicated and further confirmed.
3. The special nature of his sacerdotal intercession, which consists in the moral efficacy of his mediation in procuring mercy and grace, and not in a power of conferring them on us.
§ 5. The first thing we are to inquire into is the time and place of the exercise of the priesthood of Christ; and the state of the controversy about them need only to be touched on in this place, as having been before laid down. Wherefore with reference hereunto we affirm.
1, That the Lord Christ was a bigh priest in the days of his flesh, whilst he was in this world, even as he was also the King and Prophet of the church. 2. That he exercised or discharged this office as to the principal acts and duties of it, especially as to the oblation of his great expiatory sacrifice upon the earth, in his death and the effusion of his blood therein. 3. We say not that the priesthood of Christ was limited or confined to this world, or to the time before his resurrection, but grant that it hath a duration in heaven, and shall have to the end of his mediation. He abideth therefore a priest for ever, as he doth the King of his church. And the continuance of this office is a matter of singular use and consolation to believers, and as such is frequently mentioned. Wherefore, although he as- ‘cended not into heaven to be made a priest, but as a priest, yet his ascension, exaltation, and glorious immortality, or the power of an endless life, were antecedently necessary to the actual discharge of some duties belonging unto that office, as his intercession and the continual application of the fruits and benefits of his oblation.
The Socinians, as hath been declared, comply with us in none of these assertions. For whereas they judge that Christ is then and therein only a priest, when and wherein he offereth himself unto God, this they say he did not until his entrance into heaven upon his ascension, and that there he continueth still so to do. Whilst he was in this world, if we may believe them, he was no priest, nor were any of his duties or actings sacerdotal. But yet to mollify the harshness of this conceit, they grant, that by the appointment of God his temptations, sufferings, and death were antecedently necessary unto this heavenly oblation, and so belong unto his priestly office metonymically. These being the things in difference, how they may be established or invalidated is our next consideration.
Our first argument for the time and place of the exercise of the priesthood of Christ, shall be taken from the judgment and opinion of our adversaries themselves. For if the Lord Christ, whilst he was upon the earth, had power to perform, and did actually perform, all those things wherein they affirm that his sacerdotal office doth consist, then was he a priest at that time and in that place. For the denomination of the office is taken from the power and its exercise. And themselves judge that the priesthood of Christ consisteth solely in a right power and readiness to do the things they ascribe unto him. Neither can any difference be feigned from a distinct manner of the performance of the things so ascribed unto him. In heaven indeed he doth them conspicuously and illustriously; in the earth he did them under sundry concealments. Jor this altereth not the nature of the things themselves. Sacerdotal actions will be so, whatever various accidents may attend them in the manner of their performance. Now that Christ did all things on the earth which they assign as acts of his sacerdotal office, will appear in the ensuing instances.
1. On the earth he presented himself unto God as one that was ready to do his will, and as one that had done it to the uttermost in the last finishing of his work. This presentation they call his offering himself unto God. And this he doth Heb. x. 7, ‘Lo I come to do thy will, Ὁ God.’ That this was with respect to the obedience which he performed on the earth, is manifest from the place of the Psalmist whence the words are taken. For he so presents himself in them unto God, as one acting a principle of obedience to him in suffering and preaching the gospel. ‘I come to do thy will; thy law is written in my heart, Ps. xl. 8—10. Again, he solemnly offered himself to God on the earth upon the consideration of the accomplishment of the whole work which was committed to him, when he was in the close and finishing of it. And herewithal he made his request to God, that those who believed on him, or should so do to the end of the world, might have all the benefits which God had decreed and purposed to bestow on them through his obedience unto him: which is the full description of the oblation of Christ according to these men; see John xvii. 1—6, &e.
2. On the earth he had and exercised a most tender love and care for his whole church, both his present disciples and all that should believe on him through their word. This they make to be the principal property of this office of Christ, or rather, from hence it is, namely, his tender care, love, and readiness to relieve, which we cannot apprehend in him under the notion of his kingly power alone, that he is called a high priest, and is so to be looked on. Now whereas two things may be considered in the love or care of Christ towards his church, 1. The evidencing fruits of it, and 2. Its effects; the former were more conspicuous in what he did in this life, than in what he doth in heaven, and the latter every way equal thereto. For, 1. The great evidencing fruit of the love of Christ and his care of his church was in this, that he died for it. This both himself and all the divine writers express and testify to be the greatest fruit and evidence of love; expressly affirming that greater love there cannot be, than what is so expressed, see John x. 14, 15, xv. 13; Rom. v. 6; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 25; 1 John iii. 16; Rev. i. 5. If therefore Christ be denominated a high priest because of his love and care towards his church, as he had them in the highest degree, so he gave the greatest evidence of them possible, whilst he was in this world. This he did in dying for it, in giving his life for it, which, in what sense soever it be affirmed, is the highest fruit of love, and so the highest. act of his sacerdotal office. 2. The effects of this priestly love and care, they say, consists in the help and aid which he gives to those that believe on him, whereby they may be preserved from evil. But that he did this also on the earth, besides those other instances which may be given thereof, himself also expressly affirms, John xvii. 12, ‘Whilst I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name; those that thou gavest me I have kept and none of them is lost.’
3. There belongs nothing more to the priesthood of Christ according to these men, but only a power to act what his love and care do incline and dispose him to. And this consists in the actual collation of grace, mercy, pardon of sin, and spiritual privileges on believers. But all these things were effected by him whilst he was in this world. For, 1. He had power on the earth to forgive, or to take away the sins of men, which he put forth accordingly, Matt. ix. 2; Mark ii. 5; Luke yv. 20, vii. 48. And the taking away of sin effectually, is the great sacerdotal act which they ascribe unto him. 2. He conferred spiritual privileges upon them who believed on him. For the greatest thing of this kind and the fountain of all others, is adoption. And unto as many as believed on him ‘he gave power to become the sons of God, John i. 11, 12. 3. Whatever also Christ doth for us of this kind, may be referred either unto his quickening of us with life spiritual, with the preservation of it, or the giving of us right and title to eternal life. But for these things he had power whilst he was on the earth, as he himself expressly declares, John iv. 10, v. 22, vi. 40, x. 18, xi. 35, xiv. 6, xv. 5, xvi. 22. And with respect unto all these things doth he require that we should believe in him and rely upon him.
Besides these three things in general, with what belongs unto them, I do not know what the Socinians ascribe more to the sacerdotal dignity or power of Christ, or the exercise of it, nor what they would require more, but that the name and title of the high priest of the church, may be ascribed unto him in their way, that is, metaphorically. For although they set those things off with the specious titles of expiating or purging our sins, of the offering of himself unto God, of intercession, and the like names, as real sacerdotal acts, yet it is evident that no more is intended by them, than we have expressed under these heads. And if they shall say otherwise, let them give an instance of any one thing which they ascribe unto him as a priest, and if we prove not that it is reducible to one of these heads, ‘we will forego this argument. | Wherefore upon their own principles they cannot deny, but that the Lord Christ was as really and truly a priest whilst he was on the earth, as he is now in heaven.
§ 7. Secondly. Let it be farther remembered, that we plead only Christ to have been a priest, and offered sacrifice on the earth, quoad ‘Aacpor, as to propitiation, or the expiation of sin; granting on the other side, that he is still so in heaven quoad ἐμφανισμον, as to appearance and representation. Wherefore, whatever our adversaries do, or can ascribe to the Lord Christ as a priest, which in any sense, or by virtue of any allusion, can be looked on as a sacerdotal act, is by us acknowledged and ascribed unto him. That which is in controversy ariseth from their denial of what he did on the earth, or of his being a high priest before his ascension into heaven, which is now farther to be confirmed.
When and where he made reconciliation and atonement for us or for our sins, then and there he was a priest. I do not know that it is needful to confirm this proposition. For we intend no more by acting of the priest’s office, but the making atonement for sin by sacrifice. He that hath power and right so to do, is a priest by the call and appointment of God. And that herein principally corisists the acting the sacerdotal power, we have the consent of the common sense of mankind. Nor is this expressly denied by the Socinians themselves. For it was the principal, if not the sole end, why such an office was ordained in the world, Heb. v. 1. But this was done by the Lerd Christ whilst he was on the earth. For he made atonement for us by his death. Among other testimonies to this purpose, that of our apostle is irrefragable, Rom. v. 10. ‘For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.” He distributes the mediatory actings of Christ on our behalf, into his death and his life. And the life which he intends is that which ensued after his death. So 1015 said ‘ He died, -and rose, and lived again,’ Rom. xiv. 9. ‘He was dead and is alive, Rev. i. 18. For he leads in heaven a mediatory life to make intercession for us, whereby we are saved, Heb. vii. 26. Upon this distribution of the mediatory actings of Christ, our reconciliation to God is peculiarly assigned to his death. When we were enemies we were ‘reconciled to God by the death of his Son.’ Reconciliation is sometimes the same with atonement, Heb. 11. 17; sometimes it is put for the immediate effects of it. And in this place the apostle declares, that our being reconciled, and receiving the atonement, are the same. Καταλλαγεντες, τὴν karaddaynv ἐλαβομεν, Rom. v. 10, 11. But to make atonement and reconciliation is the work of a priest. Unless this be acknowledged, the whole instructive part of the Old Testament must be rejected. For the end of the priest’s office, as we observed, was to make atonement or reconciliation. And that this was done by the death of Christ the apostle doth here expressly affirm. He slew the enmity, made peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles unto God in one body by the cross, Eph. ii. 15, 16. Our adversaries would have the reconciliation intended to be only on our part, or the reconciling us to God, not on the part of God, or his reconciliation to us. But as this is false, so it is also as to our present argument impertinent. For we dispute not about the nature of reconciliation, but the cause and time of making it. Whatever be the especial nature of it, it is an effect of sacerdotal actings. Nor is this denied by our adversaries, who plead that our conversion to God depends on Christ's offering himself to God in heaven, as the effect on the cause. And this reconciliation, whatever its especial nature be, is directly ascribed to the death of
Christ. Therein therefore, was he a priest and offered sacrifice. Besides the especial nature of the reconciliation made by the death of Christ is sufficiently declared. For we are so reconciled by Christ, as that our sins are not imputed to us, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21, and that because they were imputed to him, when he was made a curse for us, Gal. ii. 13, when he hung on the tree and bare our sins in his own body thereon, 1 Pet. 1. 24. And then he gave himself λυτρον ‘a ransom,’ Matt. x. 28, αντιλυτρον, 1 Tim. ii. 6, ‘a price of redemption’ for us; and his soul was made a sinoffering, Isa. lii. 10, that is, sacrifictum pro reatu nostro, ‘a sacrifice for the expiation of our guilt.’ And this he did as the sponsor, or surety, or the mediator of the new covenant, Heb. ix. 15, and therefore he must do it either as the King, or as a Prophet, or as the Priest of the church, for within those offices, and their actings is his mediation circumscribed. But it is manifest that these things belong unto neither of the former. For in what sense can he be said to pay a price of redemption for us in the shedding his blood, or to make his soul an offering for sin, to make reconciliation by being made sin and a curse for us, as he was a King, or the Prophet. In like manner, and to the same purpose, we are said to have redemption in or by his blood, even the forgiveness cf sin, Eph. i. 7, to be justified by his blood, Rom. v. 9; Col. i. 14; 1Pet. i. 18. Now redemption, forgiveness, and justification consisting, according to our adversaries, in our deliverance from the punishment due to sin, it is an effect, as they also acknowledge, of the sacerdotal actings of Christ. But they are all said to be by his blood which was shed on the earth. Besides it is in like manner acknowledged, that the Lord Christ was both priest and sacrifice; for as it is constantly affirmed, he offered himself, Eph v. 2’; Heb. ix. 14. And he was a sacrifice when and wherein he was a propitiation. For propitiation is the end and effect of a sacrifice. So the apostle distributes his sacerdotal acts into propitiation and intercession, 1 John ii. 1,2. His making oblation and being a propitiation are the same. And wherein God made him a propitiation, therein he was our propitiation. But this was in his death. ‘ For God set him forth to be a propitiation in his blood, Rom. i. 25. Our faith therefore respecting Christ as proposed of God to be a propitiation, that is, making atonement for us by sacrifice, considers him as shedding his blood to that end and purpose.
§ 8. Thirdly. The Lord Christ entered into the holy place, that is, heaven itself as a High Priest, and that with respect to what, as a High Priest, he had done before. For when the apostle teacheth the entrance of Christ into heaven, by the entrance of the high priest into the sanctuary, as that which was a prefiguration thereof, he instructs us in the manner of it. Now the high priest was already in office, completely a high priest before his entrance into the holy place, and was not admitted unto his office thereby, as they pretend the Lord Christ to have been, by his entrance into heaven. Yea, had he not been a High Priest before that entrance, he would have perished for it; for the law was, that none should so enter but the high priest. And not only so, but he was not, on pain of death, at any time to go into the sanctuary, but with immediate respect to the preceding solemn discharge of his office. For he was not to enter into it, but only after he had as a priest slain and offered the expiatory sacrifice, some of the blood whereof he carried into the holy place, to complete and perfect the atonement. Now, if the Lord Christ were not a priest before his entrance into heaven, if he did not enter thereinto with respect unto, and on account of the sacrifice, which he had offered before without the holy place in his death and bloodshedding, all the analogy that is between the type and the antitype, all that is instructive in those old institutions, is utterly destroyed, and the apostle illustrating these things one by another, doth lead us unavoidably into misapprehension of them. For whosoever shall read, that as the high priest entered into the holy place, with the blood of bulls and goats which he had sacrificed without, to appear in the presence of God; in like manner, Jesus Christ the High Priest of the church, called of God unto that office by the one sacrifice of himself, or by his own blood, entered into the holy place in heaven, to appear in the presence of God for us, will understand that he was a high priest, and offered his sacrifice before he so entered into the heavenly sanctuary, or he must offer violence to the plain open sense of the instruction given unto him.
§ 9. Fourthly. Other priests, who never entered into the sanctuary, were in their office and the execution of it, types of Christ, which if he were not a priest on earth, nor thereon offered his sacrifice or executed his office, they could not be. For nothing they did, represented the appearance of Christ in heaven. And this is evident in his principal type Melchisedee. or he did so eminently represent him above Aaron and his successors, as that he is peculiarly called a priest after his order. Now Melchisedec discharged his office entirely, and an end was put to his priesthood, before there was any sanctuary erected to be a resemblance of the holy place, whereunto Christ our high priest was to enter. And whereas our adversaries say that he is called a high priest, because of an allusion that was between what he doth for the church, and what was done by them, if his priesthood and sacrifice consisted in his entrance into heaven, and presenting or offering himself there in glory to God, there was no allusion at all between it, and what was done by him, whom the Scripture expresseth as his principal type, namely, this Melchisedec, who had no sanctuary to enter into, whereby there might be an allusion between what he did, and what was done by Jesus Christ. Moreover, all the priests according to the law, in all their sacrifices, especially those that were solemn and stated for the whole people, were types of Christ.. For whereas the original institution of all expiatory sacrifices, or sacrifices to make atonement for sin, was merely with respect unto, and to prefigure the sacrifice which Christ was to offer, without which, they would have been of no use nor signification, nor had ever been instituted, as being a kind of worship no way suiting the divine nature, without this relation; and whereas the Lord Christ with respect to them is called the ‘Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, and a ‘ Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, as I have proved elsewhere, the priests that offered these sacrifies must of necessity be types of him in his.
Crellius replies bereunto; ‘ Vult Socinus 1. publica et stata sacrificia, atque imprimis anniversarium, figuram fuisse sacrificii Christi; ceetera vero sacrificiorum nostrorum spiritualium. 2. Nam et nos istiusmodi sacrificia, quibus intervenientibus, peccata expiantur, seu remissio peccatorum ex Dei benignitate obtinetur, offerimus, 3. Sacerdotem etiam summum esse verum Christi summi sacerdotis typum, 4. caeteros vulgares sacerdotes nobis qui etiam sacerdotes sumus, censet respondere; qua de re mirum est si quisquam dubitet,’ cap. 10, ad Grot. part. 21, p. 413.
1. It is acknowledged, that other stated and solemn sacrifices besides the anniversary expiation, were types of the sacrifice of Christ. But these were offered by the ordinary priests, as Num. xxviii. 15, 22, 30, xxix. 5, 11, 16. 19, 22, and were completed without the holy place, no entrance into it ensuing thereon. For they consisted entirely in the death and blood-shedding