The Nature Of The Priesthood Of Christ

1. The nature of the priesthood of Christ, why proposed to consideration —The opinions of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ; consequents thereof. 2. Christ an high priest properly so called— Arguments in the confirmation thereof proposed and vindicated—Heb. 5:1, 7:11–16, explained to that purpose. 3. God the immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, proved from the typical priesthood and the use of sacrifices. 4. Further confirmed from the nature of all the offices of Christ; 5. From the nature of sacerdotal duties and acts. 6. Some particular testimonies pleaded to the same purpose—The conclusion. 7. The call of Christ unto his priestly office. 8. His inauguration and actual susception of it. 9. Things considerable in the priest's offering sacrifices of old. 10. Their accomplishment in the Lord Christ discharging his priestly office. 11. The truth thereof further explained and confirmed. 12. Testimonies of the Scripture to that purpose urged, explained, vindicated —Eph. 5:2; 13. Heb. 5:6, 7; 14. Heb. 1:3, vindicated. 15. Heb. 9:12, vindicated. 16. Christ once offered, and that when he bare our sins. 17. The necessity of suffering unto sacrifice, Heb. 9:25, 26, 7:27, 10:11, 12.

1. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ is the true and only high priest of the church hath been before declared, and it is in words acknowledged by all in some sense or other. The general nature also of that office hath been fully manifested, from what we have discoursed concerning its original, with the ends thereof, and his designation thereunto. Without the utter overthrow of those foundations in the first place, all the attempts of men against the true and proper nature of this office as vested in him are weak and impotent. The sacrifice that he offered as a priest, the nature, use, and end thereof, must be considered apart afterwards, in its proper place. The qualifications of his person, with the love, care, and grace, which he exerciseth in the discharge of this office, must all be distinctly spoken unto, as they are represented unto us by the apostle in the Epistle itself. Wherefore there would be no necessity of handling the nature of this office here apart, were it not for the opposition that is made unto it, and that depravation of the doctrine of the gospel concerning it which some have attempted; for whereas the principal design of the Socinians in these things is to overthrow the sacrifice that he offered as a priest, they lay the foundation of their attempt in an opposition to the office itself. It is therefore principally with respect unto them that I have here proposed the nature of that office unto consideration; and I shall be more conversant in its vindication than in its declaration, which most Christians are acquainted withal. And I shall proceed in this method herein:—First, I shall declare what are in general their conceptions about this office; in opposition whereunto the truth declared in the Scripture shall be taught and vindicated. Secondly, I shall more particularly declare their opinions as to the several concernments of it, and consider as well their explanation of their own sense, with their confirmation of it, as their opposition and exceptions unto the faith of the church of God.

In the first place, they grant that the Lord Christ is our high priest,—that is, that he is so called in the Scripture; but that he is so really they deny. For this name, they say, is ascribed unto him not properly or directly, to denote what he is or doth, but by reason of some kind of allusion that there is between what he doth for us and what was done by the priests of old amongst the Jews, or under the old testament. He is therefore, in their judgment, improperly and metaphorically called a priest, as believers are said to be kings and priests, though after somewhat a more excellent manner; for he is so termed because of the good offices that he doth for the church, and not that he is or ever was a priest indeed. Hereon they say,—

Secondly, That he then entered on this office, or then began to do that work with reference whereunto,—because of its allusion to the work of the priests under the law,—he is called a priest, when, upon his ascension into heaven and appearance in the holy place, he received power from God to help, and relieve, and assist the church, in all its occasions. What he did and suffered before in the world, in his death and blood-shedding, was, by virtue of God's decree, a necessary preparation unto his discharge of this office, but belonged not thereunto, nor did he there offer any sacrifice to God. Wherefore they also affirm,—

Thirdly, That this priesthood of Christ is indeed of the same nature with his kingly office, both of them consisting in a power, ability, authority, and readiness, to do good unto the church. Only herein there seems some difference between them, that as a king he is able to help and save us, but as a priest he is willing and ready so to do.

Fourthly, That the object of the acts of the priesthood of Christ is firstly and principally man, yea, it is only so, none of them having God for their object, no more than the acts of his kingly power have; for it is his care of the church, his love towards it, with the supply of his grace and mercy which from God he bestows upon it, on the account whereof he is said to be a priest, and his so doing is called the exercise of his priesthood.

This in general is the substance of what they affirm and teach concerning this office of Christ, as we shall more particularly manifest and evince in the ensuing Exercitation. Now, if these things are so, I confess all our exposition of this Epistle, at least the principal parts of it, must fall to the ground, as being built on the sandy foundation of many false suppositions. And not only so, but the faith of the whole church of God in this thing is overthrown; and so are also all the common notions of mankind about the office of the priesthood and its exercise that ever prevailed in the world. And, to lay the whole fabric of truth in all instances level with the earth, the instructive relation or analogy that is between the types of the old testament and the substance of things declared in the new is taken away and destroyed. Wherefore it is necessary that we should diligently assert and confirm the truth in this matter in opposition to all their bold assertions, and vindicate it from their exceptions, whereby we shall fully declare the nature of this blessed office of Christ.

2. Our first difference is about the name and title, as to the signification of it when applied unto Jesus Christ. And we affirm that he is properly the high priest of the church, and not metaphorically only. When I say he is properly the high priest of the church, my meaning is, that he is so the high priest as he is the king and prophet of the church. And look, by what means or arguments it may be proved that Christ is the true, real king and prophet of the church, and not metaphorically called so only, by the same may it be proved that he is in like manner the high priest of the church also; for both the name is in a like manner assigned unto him, and the office, and the acts of it, yea, they are so more fully and expressly than the other. And he may as well be said to be metaphorical in his person as in his offices. But I shall distinctly manage these arguments, which I challenge all the Socinians in the world to return a direct answer unto, and not by long digressions and tergiversations; a precedent for which is given them by Crellius in this case, whose sophistical evasions shall be called to a particular account afterwards.

First, He unto whom all things whatever properly belonging unto a priest are ascribed, and to whom belongs the description of a priest in all things essential unto him, such ascription and accommodation being made by the Holy Ghost himself, or persons divinely inspired by him, he is a high priest properly so called. And that things are so with reference unto the priesthood of Christ will appear in the ensuing instances:—

(1.) As to the name itself, this is so ascribed unto him. No man durst have so called him had he not been first called so by the Holy Ghost. And this he is both in the Old Testament and in the New. He is expressly said to be the כֹּהֵן, ἰερεύς, ἀρχιερεύς, "a priest," "an high priest," without the least intimation on any occasion of impropriety or a metaphor in the expression. And as he is thus called frequently, so constantly with respect unto those acts and duties which are proper unto the office of the priesthood. Now, whatever colour may be given unto the metaphorical use of a word or a name where it is but once or rarely used, and that with respect unto such things as answer not unto the proper signification, there can be none where it is used frequently, and in the same case invariably, and constantly with respect unto things that suit its proper signification.

(2.) The description of a high priest properly so called is given by our apostle, Heb. 5:1: Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. A high priest is one who is taken from among other men by the call and appointment of God, and is appointed in the stead, or on the behalf of other men, in things pertaining to God; that is, to offer unto him gifts and sacrifices for sins. See this description explained in our exposition of the place. Now this is the description of a priest properly so called; for it is the priesthood of Aaron which the apostle intends to express in the first place, as is evident in verse 4. But Aaron was a priest properly so called,—that is, within his own sphere of typicalness; at least he was not so only metaphorically. To say he was, is to destroy the thing itself of the priesthood, and thereby to destroy the metaphor also; for a metaphor cannot be of nothing. But now whatever is contained in this description, and whatever in answer unto it was found in Aaron, as belonging to his office, and not adhering unto him individually from the infirmity of his person, is all ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ; as is undeniably evinced in our exposition of the place, whereunto I refer the reader. In brief, he was taken by the call and appointment of God from amongst men, Deut. 18:18, Heb. 7:13, 14. He was appointed for men, or to act in their behalf, 1 John 2:1, 2; and that τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, "in things pertaining to God," Heb. 7:25, 26, 9:14, 15, particularly "to offer gifts and sacrifices" for sin, chap. 8:3. If this were all that was required to constitute Aaron a priest properly so called, then the ascription of these things unto Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost is sufficient to declare him a priest properly so called. And there is strength added unto this argument from what the apostle discourseth concerning the necessity of a call from God unto this office; for he tells us that "no man taketh this honour to himself,"—that is, to be a priest,—"but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," chap. 5:4. And thence he shows and proves that Christ did not take this honour unto himself, but in like manner was called of God, verse 5. Now, if not the honour of a real and proper priesthood with respect unto Christ be intended, but somewhat else, metaphorically so called, then is the apostle's way of arguing utterly impertinent, as from an instance of one kind arguing the necessity of a thing of another. And it may be replied unto him, that although a man must be called of God unto a priesthood that is real and proper, such as was that of Aaron, yet it doth not thence follow that such a call is necessary unto that which is so metaphorically only; for so all believers are made priests unto God, but yet none of them have any especial call from God thereunto.

(3.) The discourse of our apostle, chap. 7:11–16, gives further evidence unto the same truth: "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest," etc. For we may observe,—

[1.] That as Aaron was a priest, so there was a necessity, from the prophecy of Ps. 110:4, that there should be another priest. Now, if this other priest were not a priest properly so called, as Aaron was, there is no consequence in the apostle's discourse, it proceeding on terms equivocal.

[2.] The priesthood, according to this prophecy and our apostle's interpretation of it, was only to be changed. But if, after the removal of the law, there was no other proper priesthood to succeed, it was not changed, but abolished. And it is more true that there was none than that there was any; for properly there was none, though metaphorically there was.

[3.] On this supposition all the circumstances insisted on by our apostle as exceedingly observable to his purpose,—namely, that our Lord was of the tribe of Judah, and not of Levi; that he was constituted a priest in an especial way, and not like unto that of old,—are of no use: for there is nothing peculiar in these things, if he intend not a priest properly so called.

[4.] It utterly enervates that invincible argument whereby the apostle proves the necessary cessation of the law and legal or Mosaical institutions; for he builds on this supposition, that the priesthood being changed, the law of divine worship or service must be so also. And this unavoidably follows because of the inseparable relation that was between the Aaronical priesthood and all the worship of the tabernacle. But if this other priest whom he intends was not properly, but only metaphorically so, there might be a thousand of them, and yet no necessity for the change of the law of worship ensue. For two priests, one whereof is proper and the other metaphorically so only, are consistent at the same time, but two that are properly so are not; whence our apostle says that the Lord Christ could not be a proper priest of the same nature with those of the order of Aaron whilst they continued, Heb. 8:4.

[5.] He is expressly said to be a priest "after the order of Melchisedec." But this Melchizedek was a priest properly so called. He therefore must be so who is a priest according to the same order; for priests of several sorts and kinds, as real and nominal only, or proper and metaphorical, cannot be said to be after the same order, for no orders can be more different than those whereof one is proper, the other metaphorical. This difference is not in some property and adjunct, but in the whole kind; as real and painted fire differ, or a man and his image. Besides, he is said to be a priest "after the order of Melchisedec," so as that withal he is denied to be a priest "after the order of Aaron." But if he were not properly so called, but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion unto a proper priesthood in what he did, the direct contrary might much rather be asserted; for there was more allusion between Aaron in his priesthood and him, and our apostle gives more instances of it, than between him and Melchizedek. And if it be false that Christ was a high priest according to the order of Aaron, notwithstanding the great allusion between what he did and what was done by Aaron in that office, and the great representation made of him and his actings thereby, then is it not true that Christ was called a priest "after the order of Melchisedec," by reason of some allusion unto the office of the priesthood.

[6.] This conception would utterly enervate the sense of the general argument that the apostle manageth towards these Hebrews, as well as that especial one about the cessation of the law. For he is pressing them to stability and constancy in the profession of the gospel, that they fall not back unto their old Judaism which they had deserted. To enforce his exhortation to this purpose, the principal argument he insists on is taken from the excellency and glory of the priesthood under the new testament, —incomparably exalted above that of the old, which yet was the most glorious and useful part of their worship. But that which is metaphorical in any kind is evidently less than that which is properly so. It is replied by Crellius, "That what is only metaphorically so may yet be more excellent than that which is properly;" whereof he gives some instances. And it is true it may be so. But it cannot be so in that instance wherein the metaphor consists. Suppose the Lord Christ to be only metaphorically a priest, yet he may, on many other accounts, he far more excellent and glorious than Aaron. But yet the priesthood of Aaron being properly so, and his only metaphorically so, the priesthood of Aaron was more excellent than his; which is directly contrary to the scope of the apostle. Suppose the Lord Christ were only metaphorically a prophet or a king, he may yet on many other considerations be more excellent than either Moses or David, yet they must, on this supposition, be granted to have had the offices of prophet and king more eminently than he. So also must it be with his priesthood, on this supposition, with respect unto that of Aaron.

[7.] Add unto all these particular instances unto the contrary, that this Socinian fiction of the Lord Christ being not a priest, but only called so, by reason of some similitude between what he doth for the church and what was done by the priests of the law,—which indeed, as by them explained, is none at all,—is directly opposite to the whole design and discourse of the apostle in this Epistle. For, creating of the priesthood of Christ, he constantly calls him a priest in the sense which they had of that expression to whom he wrote, or he spake not to their understandings; he assigns all sorts of sacerdotal actions unto him, in all instances of duties belonging unto a priest as such, and that in competition with, and by way of preference above, the priests of the order of Aaron; nor doth he in any place, either directly or indirectly, give the least intimation that all these expressions of his were only tropical or metaphorical, not indeed signifying those things which those to whom he wrote understood by them. This had not been to instruct the Hebrews, but to deceive them, nor will be granted by those who have a greater reverence for the sacred writings than to wrest them at their pleasure into a compliance with their own preconceived opinions.

And this is the first thing which we are to consider in the investigation and vindication of the true nature of the priesthood of Christ. It was such as that on the account thereof he was a priest properly so called; which as it gives a rule unto the interpretation of the nature of the sacrifice which as a priest he offered, so is the truth of it confirmed by all other things which are ascribed unto him under that qualification, as we shall see afterwards. And what remains for the further confirmation hereof will be added in our ensuing consideration of the attempt of our adversaries to establish the contrary assertion.

3. "Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle," his actings in that office do in the first place respect God himself,—τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. He did the things that were to be performed with God on the behalf of the people. And this further manifests the nature of his office. He came as a priest εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, Heb. 2:17; that is, ἱλάσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, as hath been observed by many, "to make reconciliation with God for the sins of the people." For sins cannot be the immediate object of reconciliation, but he alone is so who was displeased with them, and by whom, on that reconciliation, they are pardoned and the sinner acquitted. But yet neither can we carry this without control. This also is denied by our adversaries in this cause, although therein they offer violence not only unto all that we are taught in the Scripture about these things, but also unto all the common sentiments of mankind, putting such senses on these expressions as are absolutely contrary unto them and inconsistent with them. What are those senses we shall afterwards examine. For the present, it sufficeth to our purpose to take notice of their denial that the sacerdotal actings of Christ,—that is, his oblation and intercession,—do respect God in the first place; the contrary whereunto we shall now teach and confirm.

The Scripture instructs us, as we have proved, that the Lord Christ was and is our high priest; and, moreover, that as such he offered himself unto God once for all, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, as a propitiatory, expiatory sacrifice, Isa. 53:10; Heb. 1:3, 2:17, 5:5, 7:27, 10:10; Eph. 5:2; 1 John 2:2. What the Holy Ghost intends hereby, and what is the meaning of these expressions, he had before instructed the church in, by those institutions under the old testament whereby he foresignified and represented what was intended in them and by them. To suppose these expressions to have one signification under the old testament, and another quite of a different nature under the new, whereas the things signified by the one were appointed only to teach and instruct us in the nature of the other, is to take away all certainty from what we are taught in the Scripture. We may therefore positively conclude, that if the actings of the priests under the old testament did respect God in the first place, then those of Christ did so also, or there is no similitude or analogy between these things; which to affirm is to overthrow both the old testament and the new. This, therefore, we must in the first place confirm.

The principal duty and work of the priests under the law was to offer sacrifices. As the whole law speaks thus, so our apostle expressly confirms it, making that work the great end of the priesthood. Sacrifices had respect unto sin. Priests were appointed to offer θυσίας περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, "sacrifices for sin." And when God called them to the work, he said it was לְכַהֲנוֹ־לִי, that they should exercise the priesthood towards him, Exod. 28:1. there been no sin, there had been no sacrifices properly so called, as we have proved before. There might have been a dedication of any thing in our power unto God, as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and bounty. But sacrifices by blood had all respect unto sin, as the nature of them doth declare. Wherefore, God appointing priests to offer sacrifices for sin, and therein to minister unto him, he must be the first object of their actings as such.

Sacrifices by blood, to be offered by these priests, and by them only, God appointed of various kinds, with respect unto various occasions, of bulls, goats, sheep, fowls; whose nature and differences I have explained in our former Exercitations, Exerc. xxiv. The principal end of all these sacrifices, was to make atonement for sin. This is so express in their institution as that it is all one to deny that there were any sacrifices appointed of God as to deny that they were appointed to make atonement. See Lev. 1:4, 5:5, 6, 6:7, 16:6, 34, etc. Now, the nature, use, and end of atonement, was to avert the anger of God due to sin, and so to pacify him that the sinner might be pardoned. This is the importance of the word, and this was the end of those sacrifices whereby atonement was made. The word is sometimes used where no sacrifice was implied, but is never used in any other sense than that declared. So Moses spake unto the people upon their making of the calf: "Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin," Exod. 32:30. He hoped that he should by his interposition turn away the wrath of God, and obtain pardon for them; which he calls making an atonement, because of its respect unto the great future sacrifice, by virtue whereof alone we may prevail with God on such occasions. In Lev. 5:5, 6, as in many other places, this is appropriated unto sacrifices: "When a man shall be guilty in one of these things, he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned; … and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin." So also verses 17, 18, chap. 6:6, 7, etc. The sin committed was against the Lord; the guilt contracted was confessed to the Lord; the sacrifice or offering was brought unto the Lord; the atonement was made by the priest before the Lord;—all which give it the nature before described, and admit of no other. In some instances the sins committed were to be confessed over the head of the sacrifice wherewith the atonement was to be made; which rendered the whole action more pregnant with representation. A person guilty of sin, convicted in his own conscience, condemned by the sentence of the law, by God's allowance and appointment brought a clean beast, assigned in general for that use, and, bringing it to the altar, confessed over it his sin and guilt, laying them legally upon it, so delivering it up into the hands of the priest, by whom it was slain, and the blood poured out, as suffering under the guilt laid upon it; wherein, with some other ensuing acts, it was offered to God to make atonement for the sin committed and confessed. Thus was blood given unto the people to make atonement for their souls, because the life of the beast was in the blood, which was destroyed in the shedding thereof, Lev. 17:11.

Certainly no man can ever arrive unto so much confidence as to question whether the actings of the priests in those sacrifices whereby atonement was made, did not in the first place respect God himself; nor, indeed, do I know that it is by any positively and directly denied: for the sense we plead for depends not on the use of any one single word, or the signification of it in these or other places, but upon the whole nature and express ends of those institutions. And herein all mankind are agreed, namely, that the divine Power was the immediate object of sacerdotal actings,—that they were done with God on the behalf of men, and not actings towards men on the behalf of God.

By all these terms and expressions doth our apostle describe the sacerdotal actings of Christ. For having declared him to be a high priest, he affirms that he offered a sacrifice to God,—a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sin: as also, that therein God made all our sins to meet upon him; which "he bare in his own body on the tree." The question now is, What is intended thereby? Our adversaries say it is the merciful and powerful actings of Christ towards us, giving out help, assistance, grace, and mercy, from God unto us; so delivering us from all evil, the whole punishment due to sin, and eternal death. But why are these things called his offering of himself unto God a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sin? They say it is because of an allusion and similitude that is between what he so doth for us, and what was done by the priests of old in their sacrifices. But it is plain, from what hath been declared concerning the sacerdotal actings of the priests of old in their sacrifices, that there is no allusion nor similitude between these things, nor can they assign wherein it should consist. Their actings were immediately towards God on our behalf, his, it is said, are towards us on God's behalf; theirs were to make atonement for sin, his to testify love and mercy to sinners; theirs by shedding of blood, wherein was life, his in power and glory. Wherefore I say, if we have any instruction given us in these things,—if the office of the priesthood, or any duties of it, any sacrifices offered by the priests, were instituted to typify, prefigure, and represent Jesus Christ as the great high priest of the church,—it cannot be but that his sacerdotal actings do justly and immediately respect God himself; which shall now be further confirmed.

4. There are (as is out of controversy) three offices which the Lord Christ, as the mediator and surety of the new covenant, beareth and exerciseth towards the church, namely, those of king, prophet, and priest. And these, as they are distinctly assigned unto him, so they are distinct among themselves, and are names of diverse things, as really, so in the common notions and sense of mankind. And in these offices, where there is an affinity between them, or any seeming coincidence, in their powers, duties, and acts, the kingly and prophetical do make a nearer pass unto each other than either of them do unto the sacerdotal, as shall afterwards be more fully evinced; for the nature of these two offices requireth that the object of their exercise be men. As in general it doth so, so in particular in those of Christ. He acts in them in the name of God, and for God, towards men. For although a king be the name of one who is invested with power absolute and supreme, yet is it so only with respect unto them towards and over whom he is a king. As denoting an infinite, absolute, independent power, of necessity it belongs to God alone essentially considered. This office in Christ is considered as delegated by the Father, and exercised in his name: "The head of every man is Christ;" but "the head of Christ is God." He anoints him king on his holy hill of Zion, Ps. 2:6; and he rules in the name and majesty of his God, Mic. 5:4. Wherefore the whole exercise of the power and duty of this office is from God, and for God towards men. In his name he rules his subjects and subdueth his enemies. None can fancy God to be the object of any of the acts of this office.

It is so in like manner with his prophetical office. God raised him up from among his brethren to be the prophet of his church, to reveal his will; and by him he spake to us. See Exposition on Heb. 1:1, 2. His whole work as a prophet is to reveal the will of God, and therein to teach and instruct us. Men, therefore, are the immediate object of the powers, duties, and acts of this office.

And that which we further observe from hence is this, that there is no one thing that the Lord Christ acts immediately towards the church, but that it belongs unto and proceeds from one or the other of these powers or offices. If any one be otherwise minded, let him prove the contrary by instances, if he be able. The Scripture affordeth none to that purpose. It followeth hence, therefore, that God is the object of the actings of Christ in his priestly office. For if he be not so, then,—(1.) There is no room nor place in his whole mediation for any such office, seeing all he performs towards us belongs unto the other. And therefore those by whom this is denied do upon the matter at length contend that indeed he hath no such office. And if this be so,—(2.) It doth not belong unto Christ as mediator to deal with God in any of the concerns of his people; for he must do so as a priest, or not at all. And then we have no advocate with the Father; which is utterly abhorrent from the common faith of Christianity. And this absurd supposition shall be afterwards removed by express testimonies to the contrary. Take away this fundamental principle, that Christ as mediator deals with God for us, and you overthrow the faith of all Christians. (3.) This would render the whole instruction intended for the church in the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices useless and impertinent, nothing of the like nature being signified thereby; for that, as we have proved, openly respected God in the first place. And on this supposition the accommodation of it unto the priesthood of Christ by our apostle would be altogether vain. (4.) It is contrary to the common notion of the nature of the priesthood amongst mankind; for none yet ever owned such an office in things religious, but apprehended the use of it to be in doing the things with God that were to be done on the behalf of men. And hereby, as was observed, would the faith and consolation of all believers, which are resolved into what the Lord Christ hath done and doth for them with God, be utterly overthrown.

5. Again; the same truth is undeniably evinced from the nature of sacerdotal acts and duties. These are, as it is stated by common consent, those two of oblation and intercession. And both these are expressly ascribed unto the Lord Jesus Christ as he is a high priest, and nothing else immediately as he is so. The actual help and aid which he gives us is the fruit and effect of these sacerdotal actings. The sole inquiry, therefore, in this matter is, What or who is the immediate object of oblation and intercession? Is this God, or man? Did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice unto God, or unto us? Doth he intercede with God for us, or with us only? A man would suppose that the absurdity of these imaginations, so expressly contrary to the Scripture and the common sense of mankind, should even shame our adversaries from the defence of them. But they are not so obtuse or so barren in their invention as to want evasions at any time. "Quid si manifesto tenentur? anguilla sicut elabentur." They therefore tell us, "It is true, if you take oblation and intercession in their proper sense, then God, and none other, must be their immediate object; but as they are ascribed unto Christ they are used only metaphorically, and do indeed denote such actions of his towards the church as have some allusion unto oblation and intercession properly so called." But I say,—(1.) There was never such a metaphor heard of before, as that one thing should be called by the name of another, between which there is no peculiar similitude, as there is none between offering unto God and giving grace unto men. (2.) Who hath given them this authority to turn what they please into metaphors; by which means they may, when they have a mind to it, make an allegory, and consequently a fable, of the whole Scripture? It is expressly affirmed that the Lord Christ is a high priest. Nothing is in the notion of that office, taken properly, that is unworthy of him, no more than in those of king and prophet. No intimation is given us, directly or indirectly, that this office is ascribed unto him metaphorically. As such he is said to make oblation and intercession to God,—the things wherein the exercise of the priestly office doth consist. What confidence is it, now, to deny that he doth these things properly and immediately with God as a high priest, by an arbitrary introduction of a metaphor which the Scripture giveth not the least countenance unto!

6. We might, moreover, plead the use and end of the sacrifice which he offered as a high priest, which was to make expiation of sin and atonement for it. But because we differ with our adversaries about the sense of these expressions also, I shall not make use of them as the medium of an argument until the precise signification of them be evinced and determined; which shall be done, God willing, in our consideration of the nature of the sacrifice itself. Wherefore I shall close this head of our disputation with some express testimonies confirming the truth in hand.

To this purpose speaks our apostle, Heb. 8:3, "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." The things which the high priests had of old to offer as gifts and sacrifices, they offered unto God. This I presume is unquestionable; for God commanded them that all their gifts and sacrifices should be offered unto him upon his altar, consecrated for that purpose. To have done otherwise had been the highest idolatry. But Christ, if he be a high priest, must, saith the apostle, of necessity have somewhat to offer, as they did, and after the same manner; that is, unto God. If this he did not, there is nothing of reason or sense in the apostle's inference; for what necessity can there be, because the high priests of old did offer sacrifices to God, that then if Jesus Christ be a high priest he must do something of another kind? They have nothing to say upon these instances, but to confess the words and deny the thing, and then tell us that they agree to the words, but differ about their interpretation,—the interpretation they suggest being a direct denial of the thing itself; whereof more afterwards.

To the same purpose speaks our apostle, chap. 5:1; which place hath been before vindicated, and is so fully in the ensuing Exposition, whereunto the reader is referred. And this consideration discovereth much of the general nature, use, and end, of the priesthood of Christ, which we inquire after; for it is hence evident that it is the power, office, and duty, whereby he makes an interposition between God and us,—that is, with God on our behalf. And there are two general ends of this interposition, as the Scripture testifies, and which the common faith of Christians relies upon. And these are,—(1.) "Averruncatio mali," the removal of all sorts of evil from us, every thing that did or might befall us in a way of evil, hurt, damage, or punishment, on the account of our sins and apostasy from God. (2.) "Acquisitio boni," the procuring and obtaining for us every thing that is good, with respect unto our reconciliation to God, peace with him, and the enjoyment of him. And these are intended in the general acts of his office; for,—first, his oblation principally and firstly respects the making atonement for sin, and the turning away of the wrath that was due unto us as sinners; wherein he was Jesus, the deliverer, who saves us from the wrath to come. And this is all that is included in the nature of oblation as absolutely considered. But as the oblation of Christ was founded on the covenant before described, it had a further prospect. For with respect unto the obedience which therein he yielded unto God, according to the terms of that covenant, it was not only satisfactory, but meritorious; that is, by the sacrifice of himself he did not only turn away the wrath which was due unto us, but also obtained for us "eternal redemption," with all the grace and glory thereunto belonging. There remains nothing to be done on our behalf, after the once offering of himself, whereby he "perfected for ever them that are sanctified," but only the actual application of these good things unto us, or our actual instating in the possession of them. Hereunto is his intercession, the second duty of his priestly office, designed; the especial nature whereof must be elsewhere declared and vindicated.

7. For the further clearing of the whole subject of our inquiry, we must yet consider both the call of Christ unto this office, his actual inauguration, and his discharge of it, both when and where; for all these belong unto its nature.

The call of the Lord Christ unto this office is expressly asserted by our apostle, chap. 5:4–6, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." If the reader desire to see the particulars wherein the call of Christ consisted, its comparison with the call of Aaron, preference before it, or exaltation above it, he may consult our Exposition on that place, from whence I shall repeat nothing here. In general I say, that the call of Christ unto the office of the priesthood consisted in that eternal covenant which was between the Father and him concerning his undertaking the work of our recovery and salvation, which I have at large before described. He was not made a priest by virtue of any vocal command, as Aaron was called by a command given unto Moses unto that purpose, Exod. 28:1; nor by virtue of any established law, which gave the posterity of Aaron their succession to that office; but he was called by an immediate transaction between him and the Father before the world was. This call of his, therefore, may be considered either with respect unto designation or manifestation. As it intends the designation of Christ unto his office, so it is expressed in these words of God the Father to him, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;" which what they import in the covenant transactions between the Father and the Son hath been before declared. The manifestation of this call consisted originally in the first promise given concerning his incarnation and undertaking of the work of our redemption, Gen. 3:15. With respect hereunto he says, Ps. 40:8, 9, לַעֲשֹוֹת־רְצוֹנְךָ עַלָי כָּתוּב בִּמְגִלַּת־סֵפֶר הִנֵּה־בָאתִי אָמַרְתִּי אָז אֱלֹהַי;—"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book,"—that is, מְגלַּר בְּרֹאש, "in the beginning of the sacred volume," as our apostle renders it, ἐν κεφαλίδι "in the head" of it, Heb. 10:7; that is, in that first promise, recorded in the beginning of the Scripture, wherein his own consent was tacitly included, and the virtue of his office and sacrifice established, whence he became the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." And more need not be added in this place concerning this call of Christ unto the office of the priesthood.

8. His actual inauguration into it, and susception of it, is next to be considered. And he was vested with all his offices from his conception and nativity. There was no time wherein he was, as to his human nature, and was not the king, priest, and prophet of his church; for he received all his offices by the unction of the Spirit, when God "anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows." And this was done fundamentally in his incarnation, when he was conceived and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, communicated unto him not by measure. And so he was born "Christ the Lord," Luke 2:11. He was born one anointed by the Holy Ghost, Lord, and consequently priest and prophet,—all which offices were communicated by unction. Together with those graces, gifts, and abilities, which were necessary to their discharge, right, title, and authority for their exercise in their proper seasons were conveyed unto him thereby. And in these two doth all office and power consist.

The actual exercise of all the offices of Christ was regulated by the will of the Father, his own wisdom and compliance therewithal, with the order and nature of the things themselves about which he was to be conversant therein. He was anointed to be the great prophet of the church from the womb; yet he entered not upon the public discharge of that office until after his baptism, when his commission and call thereunto were proclaimed from heaven, Matt. 3:17. So also was he "Christ the Lord,"— that is, the king of the church; yet began he not visibly to exercise that office in his own person until the mission of his apostles with authority from him to preach the gospel, Matt. 10. So had God disposed of things, and so did the nature of the work which he had to do require. And as to his priestly office, he neither did nor could enter upon the exercise and discharge of it until the end of his prophetical ministry; for he could not do it but by his death, which was to put an end unto that ministry here on the earth, excepting only the instructions which he gave to his apostles after his resurrection, Acts 1:3.

But to propose the whole matter somewhat more distinctly, there are three things that concurred unto the inauguration of the Lord Christ unto this office, or there were degrees of it:—(1.) His real unction by the Holy Ghost with an all-fulness of gifts and graces, at his incarnation. This whole work of the Spirit, with its effects, I have elsewhere at large discussed, and shall not further insist upon it. (2.) His declarative unction at his baptism, when the Spirit descended upon him, and filled him with power for the exercise of all the gifts and graces he had received for the discharge of his whole office. (3.) Unto both these there succeeded an especial dedication to the actual performance of the duties of this office. And this was his own act, which he had power for from God. This himself expresseth, John 17:19, Ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν·—"I sanctify," that is, I consecrate or dedicate, "myself." For of real sanctification, by purification and further infusion of grace, he was not capable: and the communication of real grace to the human nature was the work of the Holy Ghost; he did not so sanctify himself. But he did dedicate, separate, and consecrate himself unto God, in the discharge of this office. It doth also respect the sacrifice which he was to offer: 'I consecrate and give up myself to be a sacrifice.' But he who was to be the sacrifice was also to be the sacrificer. This consecration, therefore, respected his person, and what he was to do as the sacrificer, no less than what he was to suffer as a sacrifice; for this also was necessary, and every high priest was so consecrated.

In that prayer, therefore, of our Saviour, John 17, do I place the beginning and entrance of the exercise of his priestly office. Whatever he did after this unto the moment of his death belonged principally thereunto. Sundry things, I confess, fell in occasionally afterwards, wherein he acted his prophetical office in bearing witness unto the truth; but the scope of all his ensuing actions and passions respect his priestly office only: for although his sacrifice, precisely considered, consisted in his actual offering of himself on the cross, yet his sacerdotal actings with reference unto it are not to be confined thereunto. And what these actings were, without an inquiry into the nature of his sacrifice, which I have designed for the subject of another discourse, I shall briefly recount.

Sundry things were considerable in the sacrifices of old, which, although they did not all belong unto the essence of them, yet they did unto their completeness and perfection, being all types and resemblances of what was afterwards to be done by Christ himself. Some of these we shall call over, to give an illustration thereunto:—

9. First, There was required thereunto the adduction of the sacrifice, or of the beast to be sacrificed, unto the priest, or the priest's provision of it, which was incumbent on him with respect to the תָּמִיד, or daily sacrifice in the temple. This belonged unto the sacrifice, and is expressed by a sacred word, Lev. 1:2, קָרְבָּן כִּי־יַקְּרִיב אָדָם. The bringing or adduction of it made it a "corban," a gift brought, sacred, dedicated to God. For there was in it,—(1.) "Animus offerentis," the mind and intention of the offerer to devote it unto God; which was the foundation, and gave life to the sacrifice. Hence, it was a principle even among the heathen that no sacrifice was accepted that proceeded not "a libenti animo." "from a willing mind." And this the apostle seems to allude unto, 2 Cor. 8:12, Εἰ γὰρ ἡ προθυμία πρόκειται, "If there be a free determination or purpose of mind," namely, in offering any thing to God, καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τις, εὐπρόσδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει, "it is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not." It is the mind, and not the matter, that gives measure and acceptance unto an offering. (2.) There was in it loss and damage in the charge of it. The offerer parted with it "e peculio suo." He gave it up to make expiation for his sin. (3.) The care of providing it according to the law belonged also hereunto. The offerer was to take care that it was of clean beasts, a male or female, as the law required, without blemish. It is true, the priest was also to make judgment hereof after its bringing unto him; but he that brought it was to use his utmost skill and diligence in the choice of a meat-offering out of his flock, or he fell under the curse of the deceiver, Mal. 1:13, 14. (4) The act of adduction itself belonged unto the holy service, with a testification of a desire, in a way of faith and obedience, to have it offered unto God. These things, indeed, were no essential parts of the sacrifice, but they were necessarily antecedent unto it and preparatory for it. And all these things, in some cases, were left unto the people, although they signified what was to be done by Christ in his sacrifice, to manifest the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, which could not comprise nor answer all that was to be prefigured by sacrifices.

Secondly, There was mactation, or the killing of the beast by the priests at the altar. And herein consisted the essence, all that followed being instituted in testification of its direction and dedication unto God. Hence to slay and to sacrifice in this matter are the same.

"Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucumque revises."—Virg. Georg. iv. 546.

See our second Exercitation for the confirmation hereof. And the substance of the sacrifice is to be thought principally to consist herein, though the offering of it was also necessary to its completeness and perfection; for,—

(1.) Herein the intention of the sacrificer and sacrificed, in that solemn formula which was understood in all expiatory sacrifices, "Quod in ejus caput sit," was effected or accomplished. And as the common sense of all nations agreed in a commutation in such sacrifices, as I have proved elsewhere, so we are plainly taught it in the Scripture; for besides that this is the open sense and meaning of all institutions about them, so the especial rite of confessing sin over the head of the scape-goat, thereby laying it on him, yea, and the command that he who brought his sin or trespass-offering should therewithal confess his own guilt, do make it evident. Now this, as is manifest, was accomplished only in the mactation and death of the sacrifice.

(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 in it. 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 to be 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 the life of the sacrifice. And the pouring of the blood at the altar, with the sprinkling of it variously, belonged unto the appropriation of the sacrifice to God, unto whose sanctified altar it was brought.

Thirdly, 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 anniversary of expiation, some part of the blood of the sacrifice was carried into the most 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 no other 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 unto his 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 unto his death; as,—(1.) His going up to Jerusalem unto the passover. He went on purpose to offer himself unto God. And in his way he acquainted his disciples with what would befall him therein, Luke 18:31–33; Matt. 20:17–19; which when one of them would have dissuaded him from, he gave him that vehement and severe reproof, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God," Matt. 16:23. 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 going to offer himself unto 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, unto 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 unto 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 unto his sacrifice, are reckoned by our apostle as sacerdotal acts, Heb. 5:7. 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. For all sacrifices were accompanied with supplications for grace and pardon. And herein did our Saviour actually give up himself unto God to be a sacrifice; which was to be done by expressions of his obedience, and supplications for that issue thereof which was promised unto him. (4.) His propassion or foresuffering in the garden, in the auguish of his soul, the agony of his mind, and bloody sweat, belongs hereunto. Hereon, indeed, succeeded an external shame, which was necessary for the leading and bringing of him "as a lamb to the slaughter," Isa. 53:7, 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 unto 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 unto God. For although the other acts, of sprinkling the blood and burning the carcass 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 unto 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 bloodshedding, he offered himself unto God.

It is fondly excepted, "That if his death was a sacrifice, the Jews and the soldiers who crucified him were the priests." The violence which was offered unto him by all sorts of persons was necessary on other accounts; so 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, he 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 commandment of the Father, John 10:18.

In the pouring out of his blood, the heavenly altar of his body was sprinkled, and all heavenly things purified, even with this "better sacrifice," Heb. 9:23. Thus is he said to "pour out his soul unto death," Isa. 53:12. That expression contains the whole nature of a sacrifice: for his soul is said to be poured out unto death with respect unto 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 πολυμερῶς, 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 unto the will of God, in undergoing what was due unto our sins, making atonement for them thereby. He "offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit," Heb. 9:14. 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 unto 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 unto their salvation, which as it were consumed this sacrifice in its oblation to 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 a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour," Eph. 5:2.

Fourthly, Hereon ensued the representation of the whole, in answer to the high priest's entering into the most 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 offering, "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, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος," Heb. 9:12,—"having obtained eternal redemption." His obtaining eternal redemption was by the sacrifice of himself in his death; for redemption was by price and exchange, and the Lord Christ paid no other price for sin and sinners but his own blood, 1 Pet. 1:18, 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 except that sometimes things present are expressed by verbs and participles of a preterit 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 εὑρίσκω in that way in the whole New Testament. See Heb. 9:24.

11. This brief account of the analogy that was between the sacerdotal actings in sacrificing under the law and those of the Lord Christ in 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 of Christ, indeed, 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 on 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 the 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.

12. I have only in this place taught the doctrine concerning the nature of the priesthood of Christ, and his discharge of that office, as my design did necessarily require I should do. The testimonies whereby the truth of it is confirmed I have long since urged and vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries in another treatise. Here, therefore, I shall only briefly represent some of them, Eph. 5:2: Ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν, τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. It is unavoidable that those expressions, he "loved us and gave himself for us," should signify nothing but what he did in his death; for they are never used in any other sense. So are they repeated, verse 25 of this chapter, Ἠγάπησε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς,—that is, to die for it; for this was that whereby Christ expressed his love unto his church, John 10:15; Phil. 2:6–8. So also speaks our apostle expressly, Gal. 2:20, "Christ loved me, and gave himself for me;" the same with that of John, "Who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," Rev. 1:5, which he did when he was "delivered for our offences," Rom. 4:25. Παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν is the expression of what was done when παρεδώκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. The subject, therefore, spoken of is agreed on, or cannot be questioned. Hereof the apostle says that it was προσφορά καὶ θυσία, "an offering and a sacrifice;" or that in giving himself for us he offered himself to God an offering and a sacrifice. By these two words our apostle expresseth all sorts of sacrifices under the law, Heb. 10:5, from Ps. 40:7, where they are expressed by וּמִנְחָה זֶבַח; for although "mincha" be usually applied unto a peculiar thank-offering of meat and drink, yet where these two are joined together, "zebach and mincha," they denote all sorts of expiatory sacrifices: 1 Sam. 3:14, "The iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged וּבְמִנְחָה בְּזֶבַח,"—by any sort of expiatory sacrifices. And θυσία, or זֶבַח, 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,—(1.) In all 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. 53:10; Heb. 9:14, 10:10; 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, chap. 9:25, 26. He "gave himself for us a sacrifice," is no more but that he suffered when he offered himself, as the apostle expressly affirms. (2.) Although προσφορά may be used for a metaphorical sacrifice, and so possibly may θυσία also, 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. Θύειν, as we have showed, is but σφάττειν, "to kill," only it is to slay in sacred services; with respect whereunto also the other word is used in good authors. So Plutarch affirms of the Gauls, that they believed θεοὺς εἶναι χαίροντας ἀνθρώπων σφαττωμένων αἵματι, καὶ ταύτην τελειοτάτην θυσίαν,—"that the gods delighted in the blood of slain men, and that this was the most perfect sacrifice." Ἀνθρωποσφαγία, if it respect things sacred, is the same with ἀνθρωποθυσία. So, whereas the Lord Christ was ἀμνίον ἐσφαγισμένον, "a Lamb slain," Rev. 5:12, 13:8,—being called "a Lamb," and "the Lamb of God," as all acknowledge, with respect unto the paschal lamb,—it is said πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐθύθη Χριστὸς, 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ our passover," our paschal lamb, "is sacrificed for us." Θυσία, therefore, being used to express the nature of the death of Christ with respect unto God, nothing can be intended thereby but a proper and bloody sacrifice. (3.) 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 unto 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 upon his entrance into heaven; which is only in favour of their own hypothesis, to contradict the apostle to his face. (4.) Προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν are regulated by the same verb with ἑαυτόν, Παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν: so 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 παραδίδωμι is not used for sacrificing, or offering sacrifice, besides that it is false, as may be seen in Micah 6:7, where נָתַן in the original is rendered by παραδίδωμι, so here 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 unto God for us. (5.) 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, Lev. 4:31, and whole burnt-offerings, which were of the same nature, chap. 1:9. And whereas this is the first kind of sacrifice appointed under the law, and is said expressly to "make atonement," verse 4, and therein to be "an offering of a sweet savour unto the LORD," it plainly declares that all other sacrifices which made atonement were in like manner a sweet savour unto 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. 5:6, 7, "As he saith also 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 from death," etc. 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 unto Christ, are assigned unto him expressly as he was a high priest, as is undeniably manifest in the context; wherefore they are sacerdotal acts, or acts of Christ as a priest. (2.) He performed them "in the days of his flesh," and that when he 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 unto 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 unto prayers and supplications considered by themselves, and to instance in those only at his death, when he might have mentioned those [which he presented] when, in the course of his life, he continued mighty [nightly?] 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.

14. Heb. 1:3, Διʼ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς·—"When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." It is agreed between us and our adversaries that this purging of our sins was the effect of that expiatory sacrifice which the Lord Christ offered unto God as our high priest. The whole question that can remain is when he offered it. And the apostle here expressly declares that this was done before he sat down at the right hand of God; and this is so plain in the words as that no exception can be invented against it. That alone which they have invented for an evasion is, that Christ indeed offered himself at his first entrance into heaven, and on his appearance in the presence of God for us, before he sat down at the right hand of God. This Crellius insists upon, cap. x. part. xxxi. p. 537, 538. But this will yield them no relief, neither according to the truth nor according to their own principles; for,—(1.) Although we may have distinct apprehensions of Christ's entering into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of God, yet it is but one state of 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 his suffering, it being that state whereunto his resurrection, ascension, and entrance into heaven, were subservient: "He endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God," Heb. 12:2. The whole is, that he "passed through the heavens," chap. 4:14, and was thereon "made higher than the heavens," chap. 7:26; that is, he "suffered," and so "entered into his glory," Luke 24:26. Nor doth the Scripture anywhere 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. (2.) 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 anywhere 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. 9:12, Διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος·—"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 through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," Eph. 1:7; and this forgiveness, or the putting away of sin, was "by the sacrifice of himself," Heb. 9:26. Wherefore, the sacrifice of Christ, whereby he obtained redemption, or put awaysin, was by his blood-shedding. And this was, as it is here expressed, antecedent unto his entrance into 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 aorist, 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 heaven, 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 by his own blood entered in one into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." I desire to know how or by what means he did 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," Heb. 7:2, 9:28, 10:10, 12, 14. His offering was one, and once offered. A action once performed, and then ceasing to be performed, however it continues in its virtue and efficacy, is so expressed. The high priest entered into the most holy place once in the year; that is, his so doing was an act that was at once performed, and after that 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. 10:1–4, etc. 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," chap. 9:28. But this he did then, and only then, when he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," 1 Pet. 2:24; which irrefragably 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: Heb. 9:25, 26, "Nor yet that he should offer himself often; … for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of 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 be often offered, he must have often suffered. It is excepted, "That although his offering did not consist in his sufferings, 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 he 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 suffering of Christ was 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," verse 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, chap. 7:27, "Who needeth not daily" (καθʼ ἡμέραν) "to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Had he intended only the sacrifice of the high priest, he could not have said that he was to offer it καθʼ ἡμέραν, "daily," when he was to do so only κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, "yearly," chap. 10:1. It is therefore תָּמִיד or "daily sacrifice," that he intends, and this was not carried on beyond suffering.

And this is yet more plainly expressed, chap. 10:11, 12, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering 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 on the right hand of God." Comparing the sacrifice 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 unto them, as the apostle teacheth us that it did, he offered it in his suffering, 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 most holy place with the blood of the bullock and goat that were offered for a sin-offering, so it was necessary in itself unto the application of the value and efficacy of his sacrifice unto the church, according to the covenant between Father and Son before described.

What hath been pleaded is sufficient unto 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 unto 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, unto an account; which shall be done in the ensuing Exercitation.