1. The opinion of the Socinians about the priesthood of Christ distinctly stated in eight particulars; 2. Expressed by themselves. 3. The faith of the church of God in opposition thereunto. 4. Vindication of the whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ from the perversion of it and opposition made unto it by Crellius—Its agreement and disagreement with his kingly office and power. 5. How the priestly office of Christ is mentioned by other writers of the New Testament, and why principally handled in this Epistle to the Hebrews. 6. Intercession no act of Christ's kingly power—Rom. 8:34 vindicated—The mutual respect between the offices of Christ with regard unto the same general end. 7. 1 John 2:2 vindicated—Testimonies of the Old and New Testament omitted— Confidence of the Socinians in pretending to own the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. 8. The priesthood of Christ is not comprehended by the holy writers in his kingly office—Attempts to prove it vain—The nature of the expiation of sins vindicated—Heb. 4:16 explained. 9. The words of the Psalmist, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," how and in what sense applied by the apostles with respect unto the offices of Christ. 10. Vanity of Crellius in assigning differences between the kingly and priestly offices of Christ. 11. The differences assigned by him examined. 12. Real difference and distinction between these offices proved. 13. The dignity and honour of Christ exposed by denying his real priesthood. 14. The boldness of Smalcius in censuring the divine writers— His reason why they ascribed the priestly office to Christ.
1. THE opinion of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ was expressed in general in our preceding discourse; but for the clearer apprehension and confutation of it, it is necessary that it be more particularly declared in the most important parts of it, as also that its contrariety unto the faith of the church may be the more plainly demonstrated. And the sum of what they pretend to apprehend and believe herein may be reduced unto the ensuing heads:—
(1.) "That the Lord Christ was not, nor is, a high priest properly so called, but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion between what he doth for the church and what was done by the high priests under the law for the Jews." And here, if they please, they may rest, as having in design utterly overthrown or rejected this office of Christ. But further to manifest their intentions, they add,—
(2.) "That he was not at all, in any sense, a high priest whilst he was on the earth, or before his ascension into heaven." And this because he did not any of those things on the earth on the account whereof he is called a high priest; but he is called so in an allusion to the high priests under the law. Hence it follows that in his death he offered no sacrifice unto God, nor made any expiation of our sins thereby; which also that he did not they expressly contend.
(3.) "That therefore he became a high priest when he entered into heaven, and presented himself alive unto God." Not that then he received any new office which he had not before, but only that then he had power to do those things from the doing whereof he is metaphorically denominated a priest. Wherefore they say,—
(4.) "That it is in heaven where he makes atonement and doth expiate our sins, which is called his offering himself unto God an expiatory oblation or sacrifice; which as it consisted not in his sufferings, death, and bloodshedding, so had it no virtue or efficacy from thence, but only as it was a condition pre-required thereunto."
(5.) "This expiation of our sins consists principally in two things,—[1.] Our deliverance from the punishment due unto them, initially in this world by pardon, and completely at the last day, when we shall be saved from the wrath to come. [2.] In our deliverance from the power of sin, by faith in the doctrine he taught and conformity unto his example, that we should not serve it in this world." And,—
(6.) "Hence it follows that believers are the first proper objects of the discharge of the duties of this office, or of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ;" for they consist in the help, aid, relief, and deliverance from our spiritual enemies which we have by him, his gracious and merciful will of relieving us being that on the account whereof he is called a high priest, and wherein that office doth consist. Wherefore,—
(7.) "This priestly office of Christ is upon the matter the same with his kingly office;" or it is the exerting and exercise of his kingly power with love, care, and compassion; so called in the Epistle to the Hebrews, out of an allusion unto what was done by the high priests of old.
(8.) "Whereas his intercession doth belong unto this office of his, and is expressly assigned unto him as a high priest, it is nothing but a note, evidence, or expression, to teach us that the power which the Lord Christ exerciseth and putteth forth mercifully for our relief, he received originally from God, as if he had prayed to him for it."
2. I have so included and expressed the apprehensions of these men concerning the priesthood of Christ in these positions, as that I am persuaded that there is no one who is ingenuous amongst them will except against any particular in the account. But that none may reflect in their thoughts about it, I shall repeat it in the words of one of their principal writers. To this purpose speaks Volkelius, de Vera Relig. lib. iii. cap. xxxvii. p. 144, "Jam ut de pontificio Christi munere explicemus; primo loco animadvertendum nobis est, illud ab ejusdem officio regio, si in rem ipsam mentem intendas, non multum differre. Cum divinus Spiritus figurato hoc analogicoque dicendi genere, quo pacto Christus regni sui functionem administret, ante oculos nostros constituere potissimum voluerit, nobisque ostendere illum non solum salutem nostram procurare posse, sed etiam nos juvare velle, et porro id omnino facere inque eo totum esse ut peccata nostra penitus expiet; hoc est, tum ab ipsis peccatis, tum vero præcipue ab eorum reatu ac pœna nos liberet." Again, p. 146, "Ut huic sacerdotis officio rite præponeretur Christus, non satis erat eum in homines esse misericordem, nisi insuper tanta illius esset potestas, quanta ad homines miseriis oppressos divinissima ope sublevandos, pestemque æternam ab illorum capitibus propulsandum opus est; cumque omnis ad hanc rem in cœlo terraque potestas requiratur, consequens est Christum antequam in cœlum ascenderet tantumque rerum omnium dominatum consequeretur summum sacerdotem nostrum nondum perfectum fuisse." So he, and much more to the same purpose.
In like manner, Cat. Rac. de Munere Christi Sacerdotali: Quæst. 1, "Munus sacerdotale in eo situm est, quod quemadmodum pro regio munere potest nobis in omnibus nostris necessitatibus subvenire; isa pro munere sacerdotali vult ac porro subvenit. Atque hæc illius subveniendi seu opis afferendæ ratio, sacrificium ejus appellatur."
"Quare hæc ejus afferendæ ratio sacrificium vocatur; vocatur ita figurato loquendi modo," etc.
"Quid porro est peccatorum expiatio? Est a pœnis quæ peccata tum temporariæ, tum æternæ comitantur, et ab ipsis etiam peccatis ne eis serviamus, liberatio."
"Cur id sacrificium Christi in cœlis peragitur? Ideo quod tale tabernaculum requireret," etc.
"Quid? Annon erat sacerdos antequam in cœlos ascenderet et præsertim cruci affixus penderet? Non erat."
To the same purpose the reader may see Socin. de Christo Servat. p. 2, cap. xv.; Ostorod. Institut. Relig. Christian. cap. xxxvii; Smalcius de Divinitate Jesu Christi, cap. xxiii.; Woolzogen. Compend. Relig. Christian, sect. 51, p. 11; Brenius in Heb. 4:16, et cap. viii. 4.
3. But the faith of the church of God stands up in direct opposition unto all these imaginations; for it asserteth,—(1.) That our Lord Jesus Christ was and is truly and properly the high priest of the church, and that of him all others vested with that office under the law were only types and representatives. And the description which the apostle gives of a high priest properly so called is accommodated and appropriated by himself unto him, Heb. 5:1–3; as also all the acts, duties, or offices of the priesthood are accordingly ascribed unto him, chap. 7:26, 27, 10:6, 7, 9:24; 1 John 2:1, 2. (2.) That he was perfectly and completely a high priest whilst he was on the earth, although he did not perfectly and completely discharge all the duties of that office in this world, seeing he lives for ever to make intercession for us. (3.) That he offered himself an expiatory sacrifice unto God in his death and bloodshedding, and was not made a priest upon his entrance into heaven, there to offer himself unto God, where only the nature of his bloody sacrifice was represented. (4.) That the expiation of our sins consisteth principally in the charging of the punishment due unto them upon the Lord Christ, who took them on himself, and was made a sin-offering for them, that we may be freed from them and all the evil which follows them by the sentence of the law. And therefore, (5.) God is the first proper object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ; for to him he offered himself, and with him he made atonement for sin. And thereon, (6.) This office of Christ is distinct from his kingly office, and not in any of its proper acts or adjuncts coincident therewithal. All which assertions have been before declared and proved, and shall now be further vindicated.
4. He who is supposed, and that not unjustly, to have amongst our adversaries handled these things with most diligence and subtilty is Crellius. I shall therefore examine what he on set purpose disputes on this subject, and that not by referring the substance of his discourses unto the distinct heads before mentioned, but taking the whole of it as disposed in his own method and words; and that with a design to give a specimen of those artifices, diversions, ambiguous expressions, and equivocations, which he perpetually maketh use of in this cause and controversy. And where he seems to be defective I shall call in Smalcius, and it may be some others of them, unto his assistance. And I shall only transcribe his words in Latin, without adding any translation of them, as supposing that those who are competently able to judge of these things are not wholly ignorant of that language, and others may find enough for their satisfaction in our discourses so far as they are concerned.
In this controversy he expressly engageth, in Respon. ad Grotium, cap. x. part. 56, p. 543: "(1.) Pontificiam Christi dignitatem a prophetica et regia distinctam agnoscimus, quanquam non pari modo distinctam. (2.) Arctius enim cum regia dignitate cohæret quam cum prophetica. (3.) Unde duo ista munera, regium nempe et pontificium, in sacris literis aperte a se invicem disjuncta, et ut in scholis loquuntur contradistincta, nuspiam cernas sed potius alterum in altero (4.) quodammodo comprehensum videas. Nam (5.) D. Auctor Heb. 3 initio Christi dignitatem quam ratione muneris sibi a Deo mandati habeat, nobis ante oculos ponere volens, et ad ejus considerationem nos cohortans, duo tantum illius officia commemorat propheticum et sacerdotale, quorum illud in terris olim absolvit, hoc in cœlis perpetuo administrat, dum inquit, 'Unde, fratres sancti, vocationis cœlestis participes, considerate apostolum' (seu 'legatum') 'et pontificem confessionis nostræ, Christum Jesum.' Apostolum sive legatum confessionis, hoc est, religionis ac fidei nostræ quam profiteri debemus, vocat Christum, quia ad eam nobis annunciandam olim a Deo missus fuit quod est prophetæ. Pontificem autem ejusdem confessionis seu religionis appellat. (6.) Quia ad eam perpetuo tuendam et curam ejus gerendam, hoc est, ad omnia ea quæ ad illam spectant administranda et ad exitum in nobis perducenda a Deo constitutus est; quasi summum religionis nostræ ac sacrorum præsidem aut administratorem dicas, quod infra, cap. xii. 2. Illis verbis expressit dum eum 'ducem et consummatorem fidei' appellat; quia non tantum voce et exemplo nobis ad eam præivit, verum etiam eandem ad Dei dextram nunc collocatus perficit, atque ad optatum finem perducit."
That the Lord Christ is called a priest on some account or other, and is so, these men cannot deny, and therefore on all occasions they do in words expressly confess it. But their endeavour is, to persuade us that little or nothing is signified by that appellation as ascribed unto him. At least, they will by no means allow that any such thing is intended in that expression as it signifies in all other authors, sacred and profane, when not applied unto the Lord Christ. They will not have a distinct office to be intended in it. Wherefore Crellius, although he acknowledges, in the entrance of this discourse, (1.) that the priestly dignity of Christ is distinct from his kingly and prophetical dignities, yet his whole ensuing endeavour is to prove that the priesthood is not a distinct office in him. And he sophistically makes use of the word "dignity," the "priestly dignity," to make an appearance of a distinct office from the kingly, which here he expresseth by "dignity" also. But he nowhere allows that he hath a distinct sacerdotal office. And when he mentions "officium pontificale" as distinct from the "officium propheticum," he expressly intendeth his kingly office. And they do constantly in their other writings call the one "officium regium," the other "munus sacerdotale," supposing the first word to denote an habitual power, and the latter only actual exercise, wherein yet they are mistaken. The priestly dignity, therefore, here intended, and by which word he would impose on the less wary reader, is nothing but the honour that is due unto Christ for and in the discharge of his kingly office and power in a merciful, gracious manner, as the priests did of old. Wherefore he adds, (2.) that notwithstanding this distinction, yet the sacerdotal dignity comes nearer or closer to the kingly dignity than the prophetical. But this assertion is not built on any general principle taken from the nature of these offices themselves, as though there were a greater agreement between the kingly and priestly offices than between the priestly and prophetical; for the prophetical and sacerdotal offices seem on many accounts to be of a nearer alliance than the sacerdotal and kingly, as we shall see afterwards. But this is only a step towards the main design of a total subverting of the sacerdotal office of Christ. For on this assertion it is added immediately, (3.) that in the Scripture these two offices, the kingly and priestly, are never disjoined openly, or as contradistinct one to another. But yet his words are ambiguous. If he intend that they are not plainly, and so openly, distinguished in the Scripture one from the other, there is nothing more openly false. They are so in names and things, in the powers, acts, duties, and effects. If by "A se invicem disjuncta et contradistincta," he intend such a divulsion and separation as that they should agree in nothing, not in their subject, not in their original, nor in their general ends and effects, so no offices of Him are divided who in them all is the Mediator between God and men. But they are nowhere so conjoined as that one of them should be contained and comprehended in the other (4.) "quodammodo," "after a sort," as he speaks; for this word also is of a large and ambiguous signification, used on purpose to obscure the matter treated of or the sense of the author about it. Is one so comprehended in the other as to be the same with it, to be a part of it, or to be only the exercise of the power of the other in an especial manner? If this be the mind of this author, it can be expressed by "quodammodo" for no other end but because he dares not openly avow his sense and mind. But we deny that one is thus contained in the other, or any way so as to hinder it from being a distinct office of itself, accompanied with its distinct powers, rights, acts, and duties.
The argument from Heb. 3:1–3, whereby he attempts to prove that one of these offices is contained in the other "quodammodo," whatever that be,
(5.) is infirm and weak; yea, he himself knew well enough the weakness of it. It consists in this only, that the apostle in that place makes mention of the prophetical and priestly offices of Christ, and not of the kingly; for which Crellius himself gives this reason in his commentary on the place, namely, because, as he supposeth, he had treated fully of the kingly office in the first chapter. In the third, the place here produced by him, as himself observes, he is entering on his comparing Christ with Moses, who was the prophet, apostle, ambassador, or legate of God to the people, and Aaron who was their priest; and with respect hereunto he calls the Hebrews unto a due consideration of him, especially considering that they had a deep and fixed apprehension concerning the kingly power of the Messiah, but of his being the great prophet and high priest of the church they had heard little in their Judaism. It doth not therefore follow hence that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are comprehended one in another "quodammodo," but only that the apostle, having distinctly handled the kingly office of Christ before, as he had done both in the first and second chapters, now proceeding to the consideration of his priestly and prophetical offices, makes no mention thereof, nor indeed would it have been to his purpose so to have done; yea, it was expressly contrary to his design. For what is nextly proposed, concerning the nature of these offices, it is agreed that the Lord Christ is called our "apostle" as he was the prophet of the church, sent of God to reveal and declare his mind and love unto us. But it is not so that he is called (6.) a "high priest,"—that is, principally, firstly, and properly,—because of the care he takes of our religion, and his administration of the affairs of it. Yea, there is nothing more opposite than their notion of the priesthood of Christ, not only to the general nature of that office, with the common sense of mankind concerning it, but also to the whole discourse of the apostle on this subject; for he not only asserts, but proves by sundry arguments, that the Lord Christ was made a priest to offer sacrifice unto God, to make reconciliation for sin and intercession for sinners. It is his being constituted a high priest for ever, and having offered the one sacrifice of himself, whereby all that come unto God are sanctified,—he doth as such a high priest preside over the spiritual worship of the house of God; so that in and by him alone we have access unto the throne of grace, and do enter into the holy place through the blood of his sacrifice, wherein he consecrated for us a new and living way of access to God. Wherefore our author utterly fails in his first attempt for a proof of what he had asserted.
5. His next endeavour towards the same purpose is from the silence of the other writers of the New Testament concerning this office of Christ. This he supposeth would not have been, considering the excellency and usefulness of it, had it not been included in his kingly office, for so he expresseth himself, p. 544:—"Cæteri scriptores N. Testamenti (1.) regium potius et propheticum munus commemorant, nec ullus ex iis Christum (2.) diserte sacerdotem aut pontificem vocat; facturi id proculdubio creberrime, si id in cæteris ipsius muneribus atque imprimis in regio, consideratis certis eorum munerum circumstantiis in quibus sacerdoti legali similis est Christus, intelligi ac facile comprehendi non posset, cum ex eo munere, (3.) salus nostra æterna pendeat, Heb. 5:9, 10, 7:24, 25. Quandoquidem inde peccatorum nostrorum proficiscitur remissio et justificatio in qua beatitas nostra consistit."
Ans. The intelligent reader may easily observe what is the judgment of this man concerning the priesthood of Christ, which is this, that in the exercise of his other offices he is so called, because of some similitude unto the legal priests of old; which is plainly to deny and overthrow the office itself, and to leave no such thing in him, substituting a bare metaphorical, allusive denomination in the room of it. And it is but a noise of words which is added concerning the dependence of our salvation on the sacerdotal duty of Christ, because indeed it is denied that he is a priest at all; and all that is intended thereby is but the exercise of his other offices in some kind of likeness unto the high priest under the law. To affirm on this supposition that forgiveness of sin, justification, salvation, blessedness, depend on this office,—that is, on a name given from this allusion,—is only to serve a present occasion, without respect to truth or sobriety. But in particular, I say (1.) there is more express mention [by the writers of the New Testament] of the distinct office of the priesthood of Christ, both as to its nature and its acts, than of his prophetical. Why (2.) they do not directly and expressly call him a priest, they are not bound to give an account unto these men. It is enough for the faith of the church that they do really and expressly ascribe unto him the acts and duties of that office, such as could be performed by none but a priest properly so called, and particularly such as in no sense belong either to the prophetical or kingly office,—namely, to offer himself a sacrifice, to be a propitiation, to wash us in his blood, to make intercession for us, yea, to be made sin for us, and the like. But this Epistle also belongeth unto the New Testament, nor is it as yet denied by the Socinians so to do; and herein this office of Christ is so plainly, fully, distinctly treated of and proposed, in its causes, nature, use, and effects, with its necessity and the benefits we receive thereby, as that no other office of his is in any part of the Scripture, nor in the whole of it, so graphically described.
The reason also why the full revelation of the nature of this office of Christ was, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, reserved for this Epistle to the Hebrews is so evident that our author need not think so strange of it. It was among them that God of old had instituted the solemn representation of it, in their typical priesthood. The nature of all those institutions they were now to be peculiarly instructed in, both that they might see the faithfulness of God in accomplishing what he designed by them, and the end that he put thereby unto their administration. Now, though these things were of use unto the whole church of God, that all might learn his truth, wisdom, and faithfulness, in the harmony of the Old Testament and the New, yet were the Hebrews peculiarly concerned herein, and therefore the Holy Ghost reserved the full communication of those things unto his treating with them in an especial manner. But (3.) all those acts of the sacerdotal office of Christ whereon the pardon of sin, justification, and salvation, do depend, are expressly mentioned by other writers of the New Testament; as 1 John 2:2; Eph. 5:2; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:3, 4, 34; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:19, with sundry other places.
Let it now be judged whether any thing of the least moment hath as yet been offered in proof of the assertion laid down,—namely, that the priestly office of Christ is contained in the kingly "quodammodo."
6. But he yet further enlargeth on this consideration:—"Quando autem cæteri scriptores sacri id commemorant quod ad sacerdotium Christi magis proprie pertinet, (1.) munus hoc ipsum muneri regio, aut functionem functioni revera non opponunt. Interpellationem Christi pro nobis, (2.) semel nominavit Paulus, Rom. 8:34, sed in ea (3.) tacite actum etiam regiæ ipsius potestatis ad nos a pœna liberandos pertinentem, tanquam interpellations effectum quendam proprium complexus est; ἐνέργεια enim seu operatio a regia Christi potestate manans, atque ad nos a pœna liberandos pertinens curæ illius pro nobis susceptæ quidam veluti effectus est et consequens. (4.) Regiam quidem potestatem apostolus ibi commemoravit in verbis, 'qui etiam est in dextra Dei,' et interpellationem ab ea distinxit; sed potestatis illius actum expresse non commemoravit, contentus interpellationem nominasse."
Ans. (1.) This condition is imposed on us without warrant, that we should produce testimonies out of the other writers of the New Testament where the priestly office of Christ is opposed unto his kingly; nor do we pretend that any such thing is done in this Epistle. Nor are the offices of Christ anywhere opposed one unto another, nor ought they so to be; nor can any man show wherein there is an opposition made between his kingly and prophetical offices, which these men acknowledge to be distinct. And it sufficeth unto our purpose that the kingly and priestly offices are, in their names, powers, acts, and duties, distinctly proposed and declared. And this author ought to have considered all the testimonies before mentioned, and not to have taken out only one or two of them, which he thought he could best wrest unto his purpose; which is all that he hath attempted, and yet hath failed of his end. It is here said (2.) that Paul in his other epistles doth but once expressly mention the intercession of Christ in heaven. But he mentioneth his oblation on earth more frequently, as may be seen in the places quoted. And the mentioning of it in one place in words plain, and capable of no other sense, is as effectual as if it had been expressed in a hundred other places. (3.) It is both false and frivolous, to say that in speaking of Christ's intercession he doth tacitly include any act of his kingly power whereby he frees us from punishment. First, It is false, because as intercession is certainly no act of kingly power, nor formally hath any respect thereunto,—it denoting the impetration of something from another, whereas all the acts of kingly authority are the exerting of that power which one hath in himself,—so there is nothing in the text or context to give countenance unto any such imagination. For what relates unto the kingly power of Christ, namely, his sitting at the right hand of God, is expressed as a distinct act or adjunct of his mediatorial office, even as his dying and rising again are. And that his intercession is completely distinguished and separated from it is plain from the expression whereby it is introduced: Ὃς καὶ ἔστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·—"Who also is on the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." If therefore his being at the right hand of God is distinguished from his dying and rising again, so as not to be included in them nor they in it, then are his intercession and sitting at the right hand of God so distinguished also. And the truth is, the apostle, for our consolation, here proposeth distinctly all the offices of Christ in their most effectual acts, or the most eminent notations of them, and that in the proper order of their discharge and exercise. And whereas the acts of his sacerdotal office are so distinct as that between them the interposition of the actings of his other offices was necessary, he begins and ends with them, as the order of their exercise did require; for,—[1.] He died for us as a priest; then [2.] He rose, giving testimony to the truth as the prophet of the church; [3.] He possessed actually his kingly power, sitting at the right hand of God; and [4.] There carrieth on the perpetual exercise of his priesthood by intercession. Wherefore there is nothing in these words that should tacitly intimate an inclusion of any act of the kingly office, but it is expressed in a clear distinction from it, as an act quite of another nature. And it will, if I mistake not, be a very difficult task for these persons to manifest, in any tolerable, rational manner, how the intercession of Christ doth include in it an act of his kingly power. Secondly, It is frivolous, if by this "tacitly comprehended" he intend that the intercession of Christ, which is an act of his priestly office, hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some act or acts of his kingly office; for such a mutual respect there is between the acts of all the offices of Christ and their effects. The oblation of Christ, which is an act of the priestly office, is made effectual towards us by the interposition of the exercise of his prophetical office, 2 Cor. 5:18–21, Eph. 2:14–17; and his teaching us as the prophet of the church is made effectual by those supplies of his Spirit and grace which are effects of his kingly power. Suppose, therefore, that the energy and operation of Christ's kingly power is put forth to make his intercession effectual towards us in the way mentioned by Crellius,—which yet in his sense is false,—this proves not in the least that his kingly power, or any act of it, is included in his intercession, which is so distinctly expressed. Wherefore, (4.) that the apostle should here mention the kingly power of Christ, and name his intercession as the act thereof, seeing he nameth no other, is a fond imagination; for both doth intercession in its proper nature belong to another office, and also it is peculiarly ascribed unto the Lord Christ by our apostle as a high priest, and not as a king, Heb. 7:25–27. The intercession of Christ as a priest is ordained of God as a means of making his sacrifice and oblation effectual, by the application of its virtue and efficacy unto us; and the actual communication of the truth of it is committed unto him as our Lord, Head, and King. For whereas all his offices are vested in the same person, belong all unto the same general work of mediation, and have all the same general end, it is impossible but that the acts of them must have mutual respect and relation one to another; but yet the offices themselves are formally distinct.
7. He yet proceeds on the same argument unto another instance: —"Johannes dum Christum advocatum quem apud Patrem habeamus, nominat, et eum simul expiationem pro peccatis nostris vocat, (1.) conseri potest munus sacerdotale nobis descripsisse: ubi (2.) tamen regium munus non opponit. At cum ad (3.) consolationem illam, quam eo loco peccantibus proponit Johannes, plurimum pertineat scire Christum plenissimam habere pœnas peccatorum a nobis auferendi potestatem (4.) tacite id in suis verbis inclusisse censendus est, 1 Joh. 2:2."
Ans. Seeing he designed not to consider all the testimonies that are usually pleaded for the priestly office of Christ in the New Testament, I cannot but admire how he came to fix on this instance, which he can give no better countenance to his evasion from; for,—(1.) The apostle may not only be thought to describe the priestly office of Christ, but he doth it so expressly as that the contrary cannot be insinuated with any respect to modesty. For the whole of the priestly office consists in oblation and intercession, both which are here distinctly ascribed unto him; and to describe an office by proper power and its duties is more significant than to do it only by its name. (2.) It is acknowledged that here is no mention made of Christ's kingly power; and it must also be acknowledged that the things here ascribed unto Christ do no way belong unto his kingly office. Hence it follows undeniably that the writers of the New Testament distinguish these offices, and do not include one of them in the other. Yea, but saith Crellius, (3.) "The apostle is to be thought tacitly to include the kingly power of Christ;" that is, although he mentions it not, yet he ought to have done so, and therefore is to be thought to have intended what he did not express. That case is very desperate, indeed, which is only capable of such a defence as this. But there is good reason to think why the apostle ought so to do,—that is, to do what indeed he did not,— Crellius being judge. For saith he, (4.) "The full power that Christ hath to deliver us from the punishment due to sin belongs unto that consolation which the apostle intended to give unto sinners." Ans. (1.) I deny that the consideration of the power intended did at all belong unto the consolation that the apostle designs for sinners, and that because neither directly nor indirectly is it mentioned by him. And he knew what belonged unto the consolation which he intended better than Crellius did. This, therefore, is but a direction given the apostle (though coming too late) what he ought to have written, and not an interpretation of what he wrote. (2.) Proposing the expiatory oblation and intercession of Christ as the ground of our consolation, because they are the reasons, causes, and means of the forgiveness of our sins, the apostle had no occasion to mention the certain consequents thereof, such as is our deliverance from the punishment due to sin. (3.) The power of Christ to take away sins, or to deliver us from the punishment due to sin, fancied by Crellius, is indeed no principle of evangelical consolation, nor doth belong to the kingly office of Christ, nor is consistent with the apostle's present discourse, which lays our consolation on the real propitiation and intercession of Christ, both which are excluded by this imaginary power of taking away the penalty due to sin absolutely, without respect to price, atonement, or satisfaction.
And these are all the places which he thought meet to consider in pursuance of his assertion, "That all the writers of the New Testament, excepting the author of this Epistle, did in a sort include the kingly and priestly offices of Christ the one in the other;" wherein how he hath acquitted himself is left unto the judgment of the indifferent reader. It was not, I confess, improvidently done of him, to confine himself unto the New Testament, considering that in the Old He is expressly called a priest, Ps. 110:4, and that in conjunction with, and yet distinction from, his regal power, Zech. 6:12, 13; he is also said to have his soul made a sinoffering, and that when, in and under his suffering, he bare our iniquities, Isa. 53:10, 11; whereby, when he was cut off, he made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9:24, 25. Sundry testimonies also of the New Testament, before quoted, are utterly omitted by him, as those which will not by any means be compelled unto the least appearance of a compliance with his design. But these artifices are wanted to the cause. Only I must add, that I cannot but admire with what confidence our adversaries talk of the priesthood of Christ, of his offering himself an expiatory sacrifice, of his intercession, when all these things, in the proper and only signification of the words, are expressly denied by them.
8. Our author proceeds, in the next place, to give a reason of that which neither is nor ever was, namely, why the holy writers do in some manner comprehend these offices one in the other; for they propose them unto us distinctly, as their nature doth require:—"Neque vero immerito sacri scriptores alterum officium in altero (1.) quodammodo comprehendunt. Nam quicquid a Christo ut sacerdote (2, 3.) expectamus, id ab eo ut rege reipsa proficisci dici potest. Sacerdotis est (4.) peccata expiare et expurgare. Hoc fit dum (5.) hostes Christi et nostri, peccatum nempe ipsum, mors et qui mortis habet imperium Satanas, destruuntur. At Christus hostes suos ac nostros debellat ac destruit ut rex, 1 Cor. 15:24– 26, Phil. 3 ult. (6.) Sacerdotis est auxilium iis qui ad thronum gratiæ accedunt opportunum præstare, et afflictis prompte succurrere, Heb. 2:17, 18, 4:15, 16. (7.) Annon etiam Christi regis est populo suo ad thronum ipsius confugienti succurrere, et afflictis opem ferre?"
Ans. (1.) We observed before the looseness and ambiguity of that expression, "quodammodo," or "after a sort;" for if it signify any thing in this case, it is the application of the distinct energies and operations of these distinct offices unto the same end, wherein we own their agreement and concurrence. That which he should prove is, that they are one of them so contained in the other as that they are not two distinct offices. (2.) If whatever we expect from Christ as a priest do really proceed from him as a king, as here it is affirmed, then is his priesthood οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὄνομα,—"a mere empty name," whereby nothing of any use or value is signified. (3.) His arguments whereby he endeavours to prove that the holy writers did, not without cause, do that which indeed they did not at all, are sophistical, and in conclusion not proving what himself intends. For, what "we do expect from a priest" is sophistical; for it respects our present expectation of what is future,—our hope, faith, and desire of what he will do for us. But this is but one part of the office and duty of a priest, yea, that part which is expressly founded in what is done already; for Christ, our high priest, hath already expiated and purged our sins, and we have no expectation that he should do it again. He did "by himself,"—that is, by the sacrifice of himself,—"purge our sins," and that before he sat down at the right hand of God, Heb. 1:3; and this he did once only, by his own sacrifice once offered, as we have proved. Wherefore (4.) it is true that it belongeth unto a priest to expiate our sins and take them away. This we believe that Christ hath done for us, as our high priest; but we do not expect that he should do it any more, any otherwise but by the application unto us of the virtue and efficacy of what he hath already done. (5.) The description here given us of the expiation of sin,—namely, that it "consists in the actual subduing of Christ's enemies and ours, sin, death, and the devil,"—is absurd, dissonant from the common sense of mankind in these things, destructive to the whole nature of the types of the old testament, and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture. This is a blessed consequent and fruit, indeed, of the expiation of our sins, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, when his soul was made an offering for sin, when he offered himself a sacrifice, a propitiation, price, and ransom, to make atonement and reconciliation for sin; but expiation itself consisteth not therein. These, therefore, we acknowledge that Christ effecteth by various actings of his kingly power; but all on a supposition of the atonement made by him as a priest with respect unto the guilt and demerit of sin. Hereby he obtained for us eternal redemption, and we have redemption in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. The things intended are therefore so distinct that they prove the offices or powers from whence they proceed to be so also: for neither did Christ as a king expiate and purge our sins, which could be done only by a bloody sacrifice; nor doth he as a priest subdue his enemies and ours, which is the work, and whereunto the power of a king is required.
Nor hath he any better success in the next instance, as to encouragements of coming unto the throne of grace. For (6, 7.) "the throne of grace" mentioned in Heb. 4:16, is not the throne of Christ as a king, "his own throne," as it is here rendered by Crellius, but the throne of God, where Christ as a high priest maketh intercession for us. So that when he says that it is the office of a priest to "succour them who come to the throne of grace," and the part of Christ to relieve them who come for help unto his throne, it is evident that he sophistically confounds the things that are to be distinguished. We go to the throne of God through the interposition of Christ as our high priest, our propitiation, and advocate; and we go to the throne of Christ as king of the church, on the account of the glorious power committed unto him for our help and relief. Wherefore (2.) the encouragements we have to approach unto the throne of grace, whereunto is our ultimate address, for help and relief, from the priestly office and actings of Christ, are different and distinct from them which we have from his kingly office, as the actings of Christ with respect unto the one and the other of these offices are different and distinct. We go "with boldness unto the throne of grace," on the account of Christ's being our high priest; as he who, by the oblation of himself, hath procured admittance for us and consecrated a new and living way for our access thereunto; as he who, by his intercession, procures us favourable audience and speeds our requests with God. See our Exposition on the place. Our expectation of relief and aid from the Lord Christ as the king of grace and glory on his throne, ariseth from that all-power in heaven and earth which is given unto him for that end. In brief, as a priest he interposeth with God for us; as a king he acts from God towards us.
9. His last attempt to the same purpose is in the ensuing discourse: —"Idem ex eo quoque apparet quod auctor divinus Epist. ad Heb. (1.) locum illum psalmi, 'Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genuite' (4.) ad (5.) sacerdotium Christi aperte refert, cap. v. 5, 6, et pontificiam ei dignitatem hac ratione a Deo concessam docet. At ea (6.) de regno aperte loquuntur. Nam (2, 3.) David qui Christi typus fuit explicat in iis verbis decretum Dei, quo rex, post diuturnum exilium reipsa fuit constitutus, et in solio regio collocatus, quemadmodum psalmus inspectus quemvis docebit unde ea Paulus Christo e mortuis resuscitato demum ait impleta, Act. 13:32, 33. (7.) Nam tum demum Deus secundum promissa sua regem dedit populo suo et Jesum constituit Dominum et Christum; seu quod idem est, Filium Dei in potentia, Act. 2:36, Rom. 1:4. Et idem hic D. scriptor ad Hebræos, cap. i. 5. (8.) Ex istis verbis demonstrat præstantiam Christi supra angelos quam, ad dextram Majestatis in excelsis collocatus, est aceptus. Quod si sacerdotium Christi a regia dignitate prorsus est distinctum, et Christus reipsa sacerdos fuit cum in cruce pateretur, imo tunc proprie sacerdotii munere functus est, in cœlo improprie, quomodo hæc verba quæ de regia supremaque dignitate Christi loquuntur, ad sacerdotium Christi accommodantur, quod tum revera fuerit peractum, cum Christus se maxime humiliavit, et minor apparuit angelis, Phil. 2:8, Heb. 2:8?"
Ans. If it were determinately certain what he intends to prove, we might the better judge of the validity of his proofs and arguments. But his limitation of "quodammodo," "videtur," and "aliquâ ex parte," leave it altogether uncertain what it is that he designeth to evince. It is enough to our cause and purpose if we manifest that nothing by him produced or insisted on doth prove the kingly and priestly offices of Christ to be the same, or that one of them is so comprehended in the other as that they are not distinct in their powers, energies, and duties. And this is not done; for,—(1.) The words of the testimony out of the second psalm, which is so variously applied by the apostles, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," do not formally express any one office of Christ, nor are used to that purpose. They only declare the relation and love of the Father unto his person; which were the foundation and reason of committing all that authority unto him which he exercises in all his offices; whereunto, therefore, they are applied. And therefore on several occasions doth God express the same thing in words very little varied, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," Matt. 3:17, 17:5; 2 Pet 1:17; for the declaration of Christ to be the eternal Son of God is all that is intended in these words. (2.) That these words were firstly used of David and his exaltation to the throne of Israel after his banishment, is easily said, but not so easily proved. Let our reader consult our Exposition on Heb. 1:5. (3.) The call of Christ unto his offices of king, priest, and prophet, as it respects the authority and love of the Father, was but one and the same. He had not a distinct call unto each office, but was at once called unto them all, as he was the Son of God sent and anointed to be the Mediator between God and men. The offices themselves, the gifts and graces to be exercised in them, their powers, acts, and duties, were distinct, but his call unto them all was the same.
(4.) The writer of this Epistle doth not accommodate these words to the priestly office of Christ, any otherwise but to evince that he was called of God unto that office on the ground of his relation to God and his love of him; for he produceth those words to declare who it was that called him, and why he did so, the call itself being expressed, as respecting the priesthood, in the other testimony, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Wherefore there is not in these words any expression of the priesthood of Christ. See the exposition of the place. (5.) These words are most eminently applied unto the resurrection of Christ, Acts 13:32, 33. Now, this principally belonged unto his prophetical office, as that whereby the truth of the doctrine he had taught was invincibly confirmed. And you may by this means as well overthrow the distinction between his kingly and prophetical offices as between his kingly and sacerdotal. But the reason why it is accommodated unto the Lord Christ with respect unto either of his offices, is because his relation unto God, therein expressed, was the ground of them all. (6.) What if Crellius cannot prove that these words of the psalmist have any respect unto the kingly office of Christ? I deny at present that he can do so, and refer the reader for his satisfaction herein unto the exposition of them as quoted by the apostle, Heb. 1:5.
(7.) Those words whereby he enlargeth herein, "That then, when Christ was raised from the dead, God gave unto his people a king according unto his promises, and appointed Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, or, which is the same, the Son of God in power," for which Acts 2:36, Rom. 1:4, are urged, are partly ambiguous and sophistical, and partly false. For,—[1.] The things mentioned in those places are not the same. In the one it is said that God made him "both Lord and Christ;" in the other, that he was "declared to be the Son of God with power." And he doth wofully prevaricate when he so repeats the words, as if it were said that he was made or appointed to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection, when he was only publicly determined or declared so to be. [2.] He insinuates that Jesus was not made Lord and Christ, or the Son of God, until after his resurrection. But this is openly false: for,—1st. He was born both Lord and Christ, Luke 2:11; 2dly. When he came into the world the angels worshipped him as Lord and Christ, Heb. 1:6; 3dly. Peter confessed him before to be "Christ, the Son of the living God," Matt. 16:16; 4thly. He often affirmed before that all things were given into his hands, Matt. 11:27; 5thly. If it were so, the Jews only crucified Jesus, and not Christ the Lord, or only him that was so to be afterwards; which is false and blasphemous. It is true, upon his ascension, not immediately on his resurrection, he was gloriously exalted unto the illustrious exercise of his kingly power; but he was our Lord and King before his death. And therein also,—
(8.) From what hath been spoken, it is easy to know what is to be returned unto the conclusion that he makes of this argument; for the words produced in testimony are not spoken immediately concerning any office of Christ whatever, as expressive of it, much less concerning his regal dignity in a peculiar manner. And God was no less the father of Christ, he was no less begotten of him, when he was humbled to death in the sacrifice of himself that he offered as a priest, than when he was exalted in glory at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
10. From this attempt to prove that the sacerdotal office of Christ is comprehended in the regal by the divine writers, Crellius proceeds to show what "differences there are indeed between them," and hereof he giveth sundry instances. But he might have spared that labour. This one would have sufficed, namely, that the Lord Christ is a "king really and properly,"—he is a "priest only metaphorically;" that is, he is not so indeed, but is called so improperly, because of some allusion between what he did and what was done by the priests of old, as believers are called kings and priests. A man would think this were difference enough, as amounting to no less but that Christ is a king indeed, but not a priest. There was therefore no need that he should take the pains to find out, indeed to coin, differences between two such offices, whereof one is, and the other is not. And all the differences he fixeth on, the first only excepted, whereunto some pretence may be given, are merely feigned, or drained out of some other false hypotheses of the same author. However, it may not be amiss, seeing we have designed the vindication of this office of Christ from the whole opposition that is made unto it by this sort of men, to examine a little those differences he assigns between the real and supposed office of Christ, which he makes use of to no other end but to annihilate the latter of them:—
11. "Distinctio autem inter regium et sacerdotale munus primum in eo cernitur quod regium munus latius se porrigit quam sacerdotium; unde illius etiam crebrior fit mentio. Regis enim est etiam punire; sacerdotis vero tantum peccata populi expiare."
Ans. This may be granted as one difference in the exercise of the power of these offices; for the kingly power of Christ is extended unto his enemies, the stubbornest of them and those who are finally so, but Christ is a priest offered and intended only for the elect. But he might also have instanced in sundry other acts the kingly power of Christ, as, namely, his lawgiving, his universal protection of his people, his rule and government of the church by his Spirit and word, which belong not at all unto his priestly office. But this was not to his purpose, nor doth he design to evince any real difference between these two offices. For it is true that he opposeth punishing and expiating sin the one to the other, assigning the former unto the kingly, the latter unto the sacerdotal office; but if to expiate sin be only to remove and take away the punishment of sin, or that which is contrary to punishing, then Crellius maintains that Christ doth this by virtue of his kingly power and office. The sum, therefore, of this difference amounts to no more but this, that the Lord Christ as a king, and by virtue of his regal power, doth both punish sin and take away the punishment of it; only he doth the latter as a priest,—that is, there is an allusion in what he doth unto what was done for the people by the priests of old.
He adds another difference:—"(1.) Deinde cum Christum regem appellamus, eo ipso nisi quid addamus aliud, nec (2.) exprimimus eum hanc potestatem aliunde accepisse, et, quicquid beneficii ab ipso ut rege nostro proficiscitur, (3) id totum Deo qui hanc ei potestatem largitus fuerit, ascribendum esse. (4.) Regium enim munus et nomen per se nil tale indicat cum Deus etiam rex sit et dicatur, Matt. 5:35, 1 Tim. 6:15. At cum Christum sacerdotem vocamus, ei, (5.) oblationem et interpellationem tribuimus, eo ipso indicamus peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non ab ipso ut prima causa sed a Deo proficisci, et eum potestatem peccata nostra remittendi a seipso non habere, (6.) nec esse supremum omnium rerum rectorem. Quomodo enim offerret et interpellaret apud alium et sacerdotis munere fungeretur ad remissionem nobis parandam? Quare dum sacerdotis nomine insignitur a Deo altissimo, (7.) cui alias potestate æqualis est, aperte distinguitur, et Dei præ ipso prærogativa atque eminentia indicatur, quæ facile ob tantam Christi præstantiam ac gloriam qua ipsum Deus auxit, obscurari posset, et sic Deo gloria illa quam in Christo exaltando quæsivit eripi.
Ans. (1.) There is neither difference nor pretence of any difference between those offices of Christ assigned in these words, nor doth this discourse seem to be introduced for any other end but only to make way for that sophistical objection against the deity of Christ wherewith it is closed. For whatever notion the first sound of these words, "king" and "priest," may present unto the minds of any prejudiced persons, in reality Christ doth no less depend on God with respect unto his kingly office than with respect unto his priestly; which Crellius also doth acknowledge. (2.) When we call Christ Lord and King, we consider both who and what he is, and thereby do conceive and express his being appointed unto that office by God the Father. And of all men the Socinians have least cause to fear that on the naming of Christ as king they should conceive him to be independent of God; for believing him to be a man, and no more, there cannot possibly an imagination thereof befall their minds. (3.) It is not what we express when we call Christ a king, but what the Scripture declareth concerning that office of his, which we are to consider; and therein it is constantly affirmed and expressed that God made him "both Lord and Christ," that all his power was given him of God, that he sets him his king on the holy hill of Zion, and gives him to be head over all unto the church. Wherefore, to call and name Christ our king, and not at the same time to apprehend him as appointed of God so to be, is to renounce that only notion of his being so which is revealed unto us, and is a folly which never any Christian fell into. Wherefore, when we call Christ king, we do acknowledge that he is made so of God, who consequently is the author and principal cause of all the good and blessed effects which we are made partakers of through the administration of the kingly office and power of Christ; nor did ever any sober person fall into an imagination to the contrary, seeing none can do so without an express renunciation of the Scripture. (4.) When God, absolutely considered, is said to be king, the subject of the proposition limits and determines the sense; for the nature of him which is presented unto us under that name, "God," will not allow that he should be so any otherwise but on the account of his infinite, essentially divine power; which the notion of Christ as mediator doth not present unto us. (5.) The reasons taken from what is ascribed unto the Lord Christ as a priest to prove that, in our notion and conception of that office, we look on him as delegated by God, and acting power for us on that account, are, although true in themselves, yet frivolous as unto his purpose; because all the acts, duties, and powers of his kingly office, do affirm and prove the same. Christ hath all his power, both as king and priest, equally from God the Father, and was equally called of God to act in both these offices;—in his name, majesty, and authority towards us, in one of them; and with or before him on our behalf, in the other. (6.) Whereas he adds, and enlargeth thereon, that by the oblation and intercession of Christ, which are ascribed unto him as a priest, it is evident that he hath not power of or from himself to pardon our sins, as also that he is not the supreme rector, but is distinguished from the most high God, to whom otherwise he is equal in authority, I ask,—[1.] Whether Christ as a king hath power, of himself and from himself, to take away sin, as the supreme rector of all, and that power not delegated unto him of God? I know he will not say so, nor any of his party, and therefore the difference between these two offices on that account is merely pretended. [2.] To make the Lord Christ, whom they will have to be a man only, to be equal in power on any account with God, is a bold assertion. How shall any creature be equal, in any respect, unto God? To whom shall we equal him? How can he who receiveth power from another for a certain end be equal in power unto that other from whom he doth receive it? How shall he who acts in the name of another be equal unto him? But these great expressions are used concerning things which are false, only to cover the sacrilege of taking that from him wherein he was truly equal to God, and counted it no robbery so to be. [3.] It is confessed that the Lord Christ, as the high priest of the church, was inferior to God, that his Father was greater than he, that he offered himself unto God, and intercedeth with him; but that he is not equal with God, of the same nature with him, under another consideration, this proveth not. And, (7.) on the other side, there is not the least danger that the prerogative of God, absolutely considered, with respect unto Christ as mediator, should be obscured by the glory of the kingly office of Christ, among them who acknowledge that all the glory and power of it are freely given unto him of God.
He yet proceeds:—"(1.) Accedit quod cum Christus sacerdos dicitur et quidem talis qui seipsum obtulerit, et mors ipsius, sine qua offerre se non potuit, apertius includitur, quam regni mentio nullo pacto complectitur; (2.) et cura ipsius admodum tenera et solicita quam pro nobis gerit, et qua expiationem peccatorum nostrorum perficit, magis quam regii muneris mentione indicatur. Unde non parum consolationis ex divina Christi potestate nobis accedit (3.) quæ alias magnitudine et sublimitate sua vilitatem nostram absterrere potuisset, quo minus tanta cum animi fiducia ad ipsum confugere, et opem ab ipso expectare auderemus."
Ans. (1.) How, according unto the judgment of these men, "the death of Christ is more openly and plainly included in his being called a priest," than in his being a king, I know not; for he was not, if we may believe them, "a priest in his death," nor did his death belong unto his discharge of that office, only they say it was "necessarily antecedent" thereunto. But so also was it unto the discharge of his kingly office; for he "ought first to suffer, and then to enter into his glory," Luke 24:26. And his exaltation unto his glorious rule was not only consequent unto his humiliation and suffering, or unto his death, but did also depend thereon, Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:7–11. Wherefore, with respect unto the antecedent necessity of the death of Christ, there is no difference between these offices, it being equal with regard unto them both. Had he placed the difference between these two offices with respect unto the death of Christ herein, that Christ as a priest died and offered himself therein unto God, which no way belonged unto his kingly office, he had spoken the truth, but that which was destructive unto all his pretensions. For what is here asserted, it constitutes no difference at all between them. (2.) It is acknowledged that the consideration of the priesthood of Christ bespeaks much care and tenderness towards the church, which is a matter of great consolation unto us. But,—[1.] It is so when this care and tenderness are looked on as the effects and fruits of that love which he manifested and exercised when in his death he offered himself a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins, and continueth to intercede for us, thereby rendering his oblation effectual. Herein doth the Scripture constantly place the love of Christ, and thence instructs us in his tender care and compassion thence arising, Eph. 5:25–27; Gal. 2:20; Rev. 1:5. Remove this consideration of the priesthood of Christ, which is done by these men, and you take away the foundation and spring of that care and tenderness in him towards us as a priest whereby we should be relieved and refreshed. Wherefore,—[2.] This consolation is nowhere proposed unto us as that which ariseth absolutely from the office itself, but from what, out of his unspeakable love, he underwent and suffered in the discharge of that office; for being therein exercised with all sorts of temptations, and undergoing all sorts of sufferings, he is merciful and tender in the discharge of the remaining duties of this office. See Heb. 2:17, 4:15, 16 and 5:7, 8, with our Exposition on those places. I do not, therefore, see how they who deny that Christ suffered any thing in being our high priest, can, from the consideration of the priesthood, draw any other arguments for his care and tenderness than what may be taken from his other offices. [3.] Christ as a king, absolutely considered, without respect unto his sufferings, is no less tender to, no less careful of his church, than he is as he is a priest, his love and other qualifications for all his offices being the same; only his preparation for the exercise of his care and tenderness, by what he suffered as a priest, makes the difference in this matter; the consideration whereof being removed, there remains none at all. To conceive of Christ as the king of his church, and not to conceive withal that every thing in him as such is suited unto the consolation and encouragement of them that do believe, is highly to dishonour him. He is, as a king, the shepherd of his flock, his pastoral care belonging unto his kingly office, as kings of old were called the shepherds of their people. But in his rule and feeding of the church as a shepherd, he is proposed as acting all manner of care and tenderness, as the nature of the office doth require, Isa. 40:10, 11. (3.) It is a fond imagination, that believers should be frighted or deterred from going unto Christ as a king because of their own vileness and his glorious dignity, seeing that glorious dignity was conferred on him on purpose to relieve us from our vileness. There is no office of Christ but containeth its encouragements in it for believers to make use of it and improve it unto their consolation; and that because the ground of all their hopes and comforts is in his person, and that love and care which he acts in them all. But that we should consider any one of them as a means of encouraging us with respect unto another, the Scripture teacheth us not, any otherwise than as the effects of his priestly office, in his oblation and intercession, are the fundamental reasons of the communication of the blessed effects of his kingly power unto us. For all the benefits we are made partakers of by him flow from hence, that he loved us, and gave himself for us, washing us in his own blood. Even the glorious greatness of God himself,—which, absolutely considered, is enough to deter us, as we are sinners, from approaching to him,—as he is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, is a firm foundation of trust, confidence, and consolation; and therefore the glory of Christ in his kingly power must needs be so also.
He closeth his discourse in these words:—"Quare hæc quoque fuit causa hujus (1.) appellationis Christo tribuendæ; ut (2.) omittam multas similitudines quæ Christo cum sacerdote legali et Melchisedeco, qui itidem fuit sacerdos Dei altissimi intercedunt; quæ huic appellationi causam dederunt; quibus etiam addenda est similitudo multiplex cum victimis legalibus."
Ans. Here (1.) the whole design is plainly expressed. There is the name of a priest, for some certain reasons, attributed unto Christ, whereas truly and really he never had any such office from whence he might be so denominated. And this is that which, in this whole discourse, I principally designed to evince. (2.) To say that Christ was "called a priest from that likeness which was in sundry things" (not in the office of the priesthood and execution thereof) "unto the legal high priest, and Melchizedek," and the sacrifices of the law, is only to beg or suppose the thing in question. They were all instituted and made priests, and all their sacrifices were offered, principally to this end, that they might prefigure and represent him as the only true high priest of the church, with that sacrifice of himself which he offered for it; and without this consideration there would never have been any priest in the world of God's appointment. And this is the whole of what this man pleads, either directly or by sophistical diversions, to confound these two offices of Christ, and thereby utterly to evacuate his sacerdotal office. Wherefore, before I proceed to remove his remaining exceptions unto the truth and reality of this office, I shall confirm the real difference that is between it and the kingly office, in a confounding it wherewithal the strength of their whole endeavour against it doth consist.
12. The offices of king and priest may be considered either absolutely, or as they respect our Lord Jesus Christ. In the first way it will not be denied but that they are distinct. The one of them is founded in nature, the other in grace. The one belongs unto men as creatures capable of political society, the other with respect unto their supernatural end only. It is true that the same person was sometimes vested with both these offices, as was Melchizedek; and the same usage prevailed among the heathens, as we shall see afterwards more at large.
"Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phœbique sacerdos."—Æn. iii. 80.
But this hinders not but that the offices were then distinct in their powers and duties, as the regal and prophetical were when David was both king and prophet. But at present our inquiry is concerning these offices in Christ only, whether they were both proper and distinct, or one of them comprised in the other, being but a metaphorical expression of the manner of the exercise of its powers and duties. And concerning this we may consider,—
(1.) He is absolutely, and that frequently, called a priest or a high priest, in the Old Testament and the New. This was demonstrated in the entrance of these Exercitations. Now, the notion or nature of a priest, and the office of the priesthood, or what is signified by them, are plainly declared in the Scripture, and that in compliance with the unanimous apprehension of mankind concerning them; for, that the office of the priesthood is that faculty or power whereby some persons do officiate with God in the name and on the behalf of others, by offering sacrifice, all men in general are agreed. And thereon it is consented also that it is, in its entire nature, distinct from the kingly power and office, whose first conception speaks a thing of another kind. Now, whereas the Scripture doth absolutely and frequently declare unto us that Christ is a priest, it doth nowhere intimate that his priesthood was of another kind than what it had in general declared it to be in all others, and what all men generally apprehended of it. If any other thing were intended thereby, men must unavoidably be drawn into errors and mistakes. Nor doth it serve to undeceive us, that some come now and tell us that the Scripture by that name intends no such distinct office, but only the especial qualifications of Christ for the discharge of his kingly power, and the manner of his acting or exercising thereof; for the Scripture itself says no such things, but, as we shall see immediately, gives plain testimony unto the contrary.
(2.) His first solemn type was both a king and a priest, and he was so as to both of these offices properly. He was not a king properly, and a high priest only metaphorically, or so called because of his careful and merciful administration of the kingly power committed unto him; but he had the office of the priesthood properly and distinctly vested in him, as both Moses and our apostle do declare, Gen. 14:18, Heb. 7:1. And he was more peculiarly a type of Christ as he was a priest than as he was a king; for he is said to be "a priest," and not a king, "after the order of Melchisedec." Therefore that consideration of him is reassumed by the psalmist and by our apostle, and not the other. And is it not uncouth, that God, designing to prefigure one that should be a priest metaphorically only, and properly a king, should do it in and by a person who was a priest no less properly than he was a king, and in his so being was peculiarly and principally designed to prefigure him? Who can learn any thing of the mind of God determinately if his declarations thereof may be thus interpreted?
(3.) In the giving of the law God did renew and multiply the instructive types and representations of these offices of Christ. And herein, in the first place, he takes care to teach the church that he (whom all those things which he then did institute did signify) was to be a priest; for of any prefiguration of his kingly power there is very little spoken in the law. I shall at present take it for granted, as having sufficiently proved it elsewhere, and which is not only positively affirmed but proved with many arguments by our apostle, namely, that the principal end of Mosaical institutions was to prefigure, represent, and instruct the church, though darkly, in the nature of the offices, work, and duties, of the promised Messiah. This being so, if the Lord Christ were to be a priest only metaphorically and improperly, and a king properly, his priesthood being included in his kingly office, and signifying no more but the manner of his administration thereof, how comes it to pass that his being a priest should be taught and represented so fully and distinctly in so many ordinances, by so many types and figures, as it is, and his kingly power be scarce intimated at all? for there is no mention of any typical kings in the law, but only in the allowance which God gave the people to choose such a ruler in future times, wherein he made provision for what he purposed to do afterwards, Deut. 17:14, 15. Moreover, when God would establish a more illustrious typical representation of his kingly office in the family of David, to manifest that these two offices should be absolutely distinct in him, he so ordained in the law that it should be ever afterwards impossible that the same person should be both king and priest, until He came who was typified by both; for the kingly office and power were confined, by divine institution, to the house and family of David, as that of the priesthood was unto the family of Aaron. If these offices had been to be one and the same in Christ, these institutions had not instructed the church in what was to come.
(4.) A distinct office has a "distinct power or faculty" for the performance of its acts in a due manner with respect unto a certain end. And those things whereby it is constituted are distinct in the kingly and priestly offices of Christ; for,—
[1.] Moral powers and acts are distinguished by their objects. But the object of all the actings of the sacerdotal power of Christ is God; of the regal, men. For every priest, as we have showed, acts in the name and on the behalf of men with God; but a king, in the name and on the behalf of God with and towards men, as to the ends of that rule which God hath ordained. The priest represents men to God, pleading their cause; the king represents God to men, acting his power. Wherefore, these being distinct powers or faculties, duties and acts, they prove the offices whereunto they do belong, or from which they proceed, to be distinct also. And this consideration demonstrates a greater difference between these two offices than between the kingly and prophetical, seeing by virtue of them both some men equally act in the name of God towards others. But that the priesthood of Christ is exercised towards God on the behalf of men, and that therein the formal nature of any priesthood doth consist, whereby it is effectually distinguished from all other offices and powers that any men are capable of, we have the common consent of mankind to prove, the institution of God under the old testament, with express testimonies in the new confirming the same.
[2.] As the acts of these offices are distinguished by their objects, so also are they and their ἀποτελέσματα between themselves, or in their own nature. The acts of the sacerdotal office operate morally only, by way of procurement or acquisition; those of the regal office are physical, and really operative of their effects: for all the acts of the priestly office belong unto oblation or intercession. And their effects consist either in, (1.) "averruncatione mali," or (2.) "procuratione boni." These they effect morally only, by procuring and obtaining of them. The acts of the kingly office are legislation, communication of the Spirit, helps, aids, assistances of grace, destruction of enemies, and the like. But these are all physically operative of their effects. Wherefore the offices whence they proceed must be distinct in their natures, as also they are. And what hath been spoken may suffice at present to evince the difference between these two offices of Christ, which those men are the first that ever called into doubt or controversy.
13. I shall close this discourse with the consideration of an attempt of Crellius to vindicate his doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ from an objection of Grotius against it, namely, that it "diminishes the glory of Christ, in ascribing unto him only a figurative priesthood." For hereunto he answers, by way of concession, (1.) "That indeed they allow Christ to be a priest metaphorically only, as believers are said to be kings and priests, and to offer sacrifices." Now, this is plainly to deny any such real office, which sometimes they would not seem to do, and to substitute an external denomination in the room thereof. What are the consequents hereof, and what a pernicious aspect this hath upon the faith and consolation of all believers, is left unto the judgment of all who concern themselves in these things. He answers, (2.) "That although they deny the Lord Christ to be a priest properly so called, yet the dignity which they ascribe unto him under that name and title is not metaphorical, but real, and a greater dignity than their adversaries will allow." For the latter clause, or who they are that ascribe most glory and honour to Jesus Christ, according as that duty is prescribed unto us in the Scripture, both with respect unto his person, his mediation, and all his offices, with the benefits redounding unto the church thereby,—they or we,—is left unto every impartial or unprejudiced judgment in the world. For the former, the question is not about what dignity they assign to Christ, nor about what names or titles they think meet to give him, but about the real honour of the priesthood. That this is an honour in itself, that it was so to Aaron, that it is so to Christ, our apostle expressly declares, Heb. 5:4, 5. 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 apostle 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 accompanying 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 unto what may be fancied as metaphorical. And whereas the dignities of all the mediatory actings of Christ are to be taken from the efficacy of them, and their tendency unto the glory of God and the salvation of the church, it is evident that those which are assigned unto 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, unto the priesthood of Aaron, on what grounds or from what principles doth our apostle argue unto 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 metaphorically.
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. xxiii., "Quo porro figurate loquendi nimio studio factum est ut etiam de Christo dicatur eum apud Deum pro nobis interpellare," etc.;—"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 be a 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 unto him.
