Of The Acts Of The Priesthood Of Christ, Their Object, With The Time And Place Of Its Exercise

1. The acts and adjuncts of the priesthood of Christ proposed to consideration—The acts of it two in general, oblation and intercession— Vanity of confessions in general, ambiguous words, whilst their sense is undetermined. 2. The true nature of the oblation of Christ—Opinion of the Socinians concerning it. 3. The nature of his intercession, with their conceptions about it. 4. Things proposed unto a further discussion. 5. The time and place of Christ's susception and discharge of the office of the priesthood. 6. The first argument for the time of the exercise of this office, taken from the concession of the adversaries. 7. The second, from the effect of his sacrifice in making atonement, and the prefiguration thereof in the sacrifices of the law. 8. Thirdly, From his entrance into heaven as a high priest with respect to the sacrifice he had offered. 9. Fourthly, Other priests, who entered not into the sanctuary, types of Christ in their office and sacrificing, vindicated from the exception of Crellius. 10. The account given of the priesthood of Christ by Valentinus Smalcius examined. 11. The arguings of Woolzogenius to the same purpose. 12. The boldness and impiety of Smalcius reproved. 13. God the immediate object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ. 14–19. This proved and vindicated from the exceptions of Crellius. 20. Reasons for so doing.

1. HAVING declared and vindicated the nature of the sacerdotal office of our Lord Jesus Christ, it remaineth that we consider the acts of it distinctly, with some of the most important adjuncts of its exercise. And it is not so much the dogmatical declaration of these things that I design, which also hath already been sufficiently discharged, as the vindication of them from the perverse senses put upon them by the Socinians.

The general acts of the Lord Christ as the high priest of the church are two,—namely, oblation and intercession. These the nature of the office in general doth require, and these are constantly assigned unto him in the Scripture. But concerning these, their nature, efficacy, season, use or end, there is no agreement between us and the Socinians. And I know not that there is any thing of the like nature fallen out among those who profess themselves to be Christians, wherein persons fully agreeing in the same words and expressions, as they and we do in this matter, should yet really disagree, and that unto the greatest extremity of difference, about every thing signified by them, as we do herein. And this sufficiently discovers the vanity of all attempts to reconcile the differing parties among Christians by a confession of faith, composed in such general words and terms as that each party may safely subscribe and declare its assent unto. Neither is the insufficiency of this design relieved by the additional advice that this confession be composed wholly out of the Scriptures and of expressions therein used; for it is not an agreement in words and the outward sound of them, but the belief and profession of the same truths or things, that is alone to be valued, all that is beyond such an agreement being let at peace in the province of mutual forbearance. An agreement in words only parrots may learn; and it will be better amongst them than that which is only so amongst men, because they have no mind to act dissenting and contradicting principles. But for men to declare their assent unto a certain form of words, and in the meantime in their minds and understandings expressly to judge and condemn the faith and apprehensions of one another about these very things, is a matter that no way tends to the union, peace, or edification of the church. For instance, suppose a form of words expressing in general that Christ was a high priest; that, the acts of the priesthood being oblation and intercession, Christ in like manner offered himself to God and maketh intercession for us; that hereby he purgeth, expiateth, and doth away our sins, with many more expressions to the same purpose, should be drawn up and subscribed by the Socinians and their adversaries, as they can safely do on all hands; will this in the least further any agreement or unity between us, whilst we not only disagree about the sense of all these terms and expressions, but believe that things absolutely distinct and inconsistent with one another, yea, destructive of one another, are intended in them? For so really it is between us herein, as the further consideration of particulars will manifest.

2. First, The oblation of Christ is that act or duty of his sacerdotal office whereby he offered himself, his soul and body, or his whole human nature, an expiatory sacrifice to God in his death and blood-shedding, to make atonement for the sins of mankind, and to purchase for them eternal redemption. So that,—(1.) The nature of the oblation of Christ consisted in a bloody expiatory sacrifice, making atonement for sin, by bearing the punishment due thereunto. And, (2.) As to the efficacy of it, it hath procured for us pardon of sin, freedom from the curse, and eternal redemption. (3.) The time and place when and wherein Christ, as our high priest, thus offered himself a sacrifice unto God, was in the days of his flesh, whilst he was yet in this world, by his suffering in the garden, but especially on the cross.

For the application of the effects of this oblation of Christ unto the church, and the completing of all that was foresignified as belonging thereunto, it was necessary that, as our high priest, he should enter into the holy place, or the presence of God in the heavens, there to represent himself as having done the will of God, and finished the work committed to him; whereon the actual efficacy of his oblation or the communication of the fruits of it unto the church, according to the covenant between the Father and Son before described, doth depend.

In all these things the Socinians wholly dissent from us. What they conceive about the nature of the office itself hath been already called unto an account. As for this act or duty of it, they apprehend,—(1.) That the expiatory oblation or sacrifice ascribed unto the Lord Christ, as a high priest, is nothing but his presenting of himself alive in the presence of God. (2.) This, therefore, they say he did after his resurrection, upon his ascension into heaven, when he had revealed the will of God, and testified to the truth of his ministry with his death, which was necessary unto his ensuing oblation. (3.) That his expiation of our sins consists in the exercise of that power which he is intrusted withal, upon this offering of himself, to free us from the punishment due unto them. (4.) That this presentation of himself in heaven might be called his offering of himself, or an expiatory sacrifice, it was necessary that, antecedently thereunto, he should die for the ends mentioned; for if he had not so done there would have been no allusion between his care and power in heaven which he exerciseth towards the church, and the actings of the high priests of old in their oblations and sacrifices, and so no ground or reason why what he did and doth should be called the offering of himself. Wherefore this is the substance of what they affirm in this matter:—"The place of Christ's offering himself was in heaven, in the glorious presence of God; the time of it, after his ascension; the nature of it, a presenting himself in the presence of God, as one who, having declared his name and done his will, was gloriously exalted by him;—the whole efficacy hereof being an effect of that power which Christ hath received as exalted to deliver us from sin."

In this imaginary oblation the death of Christ hath no part non interest. They say, indeed, it was previously necessary thereunto but this seems but a mere pretence, seeing it is not intelligible, on their principles, how it should so be: for they affirm that Christ did not offer in heaven that very body wherein he suffered on the tree but a new, spiritual body that was prepared for him unto that end. And what necessity is there that one body should suffer and did that another might be presented in heaven? The principal issues whereunto these differences between them and us may be reduced shall be declared and insisted on.

3. The second duty of the priestly office is intercession. How frequently this also is ascribed unto the Lord Christ as a high priest hath been declared before. Now, intercession is of two sorts—(1.) Formal and oral; (2.) Virtual and real. (1.) There is a formal, oral intercession, when any one, by words, arguments, supplications, with humble earnestness in their use, prevails with another for any good thing that is in his power to be bestowed on himself or others. Of this nature was the intercession of Christ whilst he was on the earth. He dealt with God, by prayers, and supplications, sometimes with cries and tears, with respect unto himself in the work he had undertaken, but principally for the church of his elect, Heb. 5:7; John 17. This was his intercession as a priest whilst he was on the earth, namely, his interposition with God, by prayers and supplications, suited unto the state wherein he was, for the application of the benefits of his mediation unto the church, or the accomplishment of the promises made unto him upon his undertaking the work of redemption. (2.) Virtual or real intercession differs not in the substance or nature of it from that which is oral and formal, but only in the outward manner of its performance, with respect unto the reasons of it as now accomplished. When Christ was upon the earth, his state and condition rendered it necessary that his intercession should be by way of formal supplications; and that, as to the argument of it, it should respect that which was for to come, his oblation,—which is both the procuring cause of all good things interceded for and the argument to be pleaded for their actual communication,—being not yet completed. But now, in heaven, the state and condition of Christ admitting of no oral or formal supplications, and the ground, reason, or argument of his intercession, being finished and past, his intercession, as the means of the actual impetration of grace and glory, consists in the real presentation of his offering and sacrifice for the procuring of the actual communication of the fruits thereof unto them for whom he so offered himself. The whole matter of words, prayers, and supplications, yea, of internal conceptions of the mind formed into prayers, is but accidental unto intercession, attending the state and condition of him that intercedes. The real entire nature of it consists in the presentation of such things as may prevail in the way of motive or procuring cause with respect unto the things interceded for. And such do we affirm the intercession of Christ as our high priest in heaven to be. It is no easy matter to apprehend aright what our adversaries judge concerning this duty of the priesthood of Christ. They all say the expression is figurative, and they will not allow any real intercession of Christ, although the Scriptures so expressly lay the weight of our consolation, preservation, and salvation thereon, Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25– 27; 1 John 2:1. Neither are they agreed what is signified by it. That which mostly they agree on is, that it is a "word used to declare that the power which Christ exerciseth in heaven was not originally his own, but was granted to him of God; and therefore the good that by virtue thereof he doth to and for the church is so expressed as if he obtained it of God by intercession." But it is, I confess, strange to me, that what the Holy Ghost left the weight of our consolation and salvation on should be no more but a word signifying that the power which Christ exerciseth in heaven for the good of his church was "not originally his own," but was conferred on him by God after his ascension into heaven.

4. From what hath been discoursed it is evident how great and wide the difference is between us about these things, which yet are the things wherein the life of our faith is concerned. And so resolved are they in their own sentiments, that they will not admit of such terms of reconciliation as may be tendered unto them, if in any thing they intrench thereon; for whereas Grotius premised unto his discourse on this subject, "Constat nobis ac Socino de voce Christi mortem fuisse sacrificium expiatorium, id ipsum clare testante divina ad Hebræos Epistola,"—"We are agreed with Socinus as to the name, that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice, as is clearly testified in the Epistle to the Hebrews,"— Crellius renounceth any such concession in Socinus, and tells Grotius how greatly he is mistaken in that supposition, seeing both he and they do perfectly deny that the death of Christ was the expiatory sacrifice mentioned in that Epistle, cap. x. part. 1, p. 472. Now, it is evident that these things cannot be handled unto full satisfaction without a complete discussion of the true nature of the sacrifice of Christ. But this is not my present design, nor shall I engage into it in these Exercitations. The proper seat of the doctrine thereof is in the 9th and 10th chapters of this Epistle. If God will, and we live to arrive thereunto, all things concerning them shall be handled at large. Only, there are some things which belong peculiarly to the office itself under consideration. These we shall separate from what concerns the nature of the sacrifice, and vindicate from the exceptions of our adversaries. And they are referred unto the ensuing heads:—First, The time and place when and where the Lord Christ entered on and principally discharged the office of his priesthood. Secondly, The immediate proper object of all his sacerdotal actings, which having been stated before must now be vindicated and further confirmed Thirdly, The especial nature of his sacerdotal intercession, which consists in the moral efficacy of his mediation in procuring mercy and grace, and not in a power of conferring them on us.

5. The FIRST thing we are to inquire into is, the time and place of the exercise of the priesthood of Christ; and the state of the controversy about them needs only to be touched on in this place, as having been before laid down. Wherefore with reference hereunto we affirm,—

(1.) That the Lord Christ was a high priest in the days of his flesh, whilst he was in this world, even as he was also the king and prophet of the church. (2.) That he exercised or discharged this office, as unto the principal acts and duties of it, especially as to the oblation of his great expiatory sacrifice, upon the earth, in his death, and the effusion of his blood thereon. (3.) We say not that the priesthood of Christ was limited or confined unto this world, or the time before his resurrection, but grant that it hath a duration in heaven, and shall have so unto the end of his mediation. He abideth, therefore, a priest for ever, as he doth the king of his church. And the continuance of this office is a matter of singular use and consolation to believers, and as such is frequently mentioned. Wherefore, although he ascended not into heaven to be made a priest, but as a priest, yet his ascension, exaltation, and glorious immortality, or the "power of an endless life," were antecedently necessary to the actual discharge of some duties belonging unto that office, as his intercession and the continual application of the fruits and benefits of his oblation.

The Socinians, as hath been declared, comply with us in none of these assertions; for whereas they judge that Christ is then and therein only a priest, when and wherein he offereth himself unto God, this they say he did not until his entrance into heaven upon his ascension, and that there he continueth still so to do. Whilst he was in this world, if we may believe them, he was no priest, nor were any of his duties or actings sacerdotal. But yet, to mollify the harshness of this conceit, they grant that, by the appointment of God, his temptations, sufferings, and death, were antecedently necessary unto his heavenly oblation, and so belong unto his priestly office metonymically. These being the things in difference, how they may be established or invalidated is our next consideration.

6. Our first argument for the time and place of the exercise of the priesthood of Christ shall be taken from the judgment and opinion of our adversaries themselves; for if the Lord Christ whilst he was upon the earth had power to perform, and did actually perform, all those things wherein they affirm that his sacerdotal office doth consist, then was he a priest at that time and in that place; for the denomination of the office is taken from the power and its exercise. And themselves judge that the priesthood of Christ consisteth solely in a right, power, and readiness, to do the things which they ascribe unto him. Neither can any difference be feigned from a distinct manner of the performance of the things so ascribed unto him. In heaven, indeed, he doth them conspicuously and illustriously; in the earth he did them under sundry concealments. But this altereth not the nature of the things themselves. Sacerdotal actions will be so whatever various accidents may attend them in the manner of their performance. Now, that Christ did all things on the earth which they assign as acts of his sacerdotal office will appear in the ensuing instances: —

(1.) On the earth he presented himself unto God as one that was ready to do his will, and as one that had done it unto the uttermost, in the last finishing of his work. This presentation they call his offering himself unto God. And this he doth, Heb. 10:7, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." That this was with respect unto the obedience which he performed on the earth is manifest from the place of the psalmist whence the words are taken; for he so presents himself in them unto God as one acting a principle of obedience unto him in suffering and preaching the gospel: "I come to do thy will; thy law is written in my heart," Ps. 40:8–10. Again, he solemnly offered himself unto God on the earth upon the consideration of the accomplishment of the whole work which was committed unto him, when he was in the close and finishing of it. And herewithal he made his request to God that those who believed on him, or should so do to the end of the world, might have all the benefits which God had decreed and purposed to bestow on them through his obedience unto him;—which is the full description of the oblation of Christ, according to these men. See John 17:1–6, etc.

(2.) He had and exercised on the earth a most tender love and care for his whole church, both his present disciples and all that should believe on him through their word. This they make to be the principal property of this office of Christ, or rather, from hence it is,—namely, his tender care, love, and readiness to relieve, which we cannot apprehend in him under the notion of his kingly power alone,—that he is called a high priest, and is so to be looked on. Now, whereas two things may be considered in the love and care of Christ towards his church; first, The evidencing fruits of it; and, secondly, Its effects;—the former were more conspicuous in what he did in this life than in what he doth in heaven, and the latter every way equal thereunto. For, [1.] The great evidencing fruit of the love of Christ and his care of his church was in this, that he died for it. This both himself and all the divine writers express and testify to be the greatest fruit and evidence of love, expressly affirming that greater love there cannot be than what is so expressed. See John 10:14, 15, 15:13; Rom. 5:6; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:25; 1 John 3:16; Rev. 1:5. If, therefore, Christ be denominated a high priest because of his love and care towards his church, as he had them in the highest degree, so he gave the greatest evidence of them possible, whilst he was in this world. This he did in dying for it, in giving his life for it; which, in what sense soever it be affirmed, is the highest fruit of love, and so the highest act of his sacerdotal office. [2.] The effects of this priestly love and care, they say, consists in the help and aid which he gives unto those that believe on him, whereby they may be preserved from evil. But that he did this also on the earth, besides those other instances which may be given thereof, himself also expressly affirms, John 17:12, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name; those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost."

(3.) There belongs nothing more unto the priesthood of Christ, according unto these men, but only a power to act what his love and care do incline and dispose him unto. And this consists in the actual collation of grace, mercy, pardon of sin, and spiritual privileges, on believers. But all these things were effected by him whilst he was in this world. For,—[1.] He had power on the earth to forgive or take away the sins of men; which he put forth and acted accordingly, Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20, 7:48. And the taking away of sin effectually is the great sacerdotal act which they ascribe unto him. [2.] He conferred spiritual privileges upon them who believed on him; for the greatest thing of this kind, and the fountain of all others, is adoption, and unto "as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God," John 1:11, 12. [3.] Whatever also Christ doth for us of this kind may be referred either unto his quickening of us with life spiritual, with the preservation of it, or the giving of us right and title to eternal life. But for these things he had power whilst he was on the earth, as he himself expressly declares, John 4:10, 5:21, 6:40, 10:28, 11:25, 14:6, 15:5, 17:22. And with respect unto all these things doth he require that we should believe in him and rely upon him.

Besides these three things in general, with what belongs unto them, I do not know what the Socinians ascribe more to the sacerdotal dignity or power of Christ or the exercise of it, nor what they require more, but that the name and title of the high priest of the church may be ascribed unto him in their way,—that is, metaphorically; for although they set these things off with the specious titles of expiating or purging our sins, of the offering of himself unto God, of intercession, and the like names, as real sacerdotal acts, yet it is evident that no more is intended by them than we have expressed under these heads. And if they shall say otherwise, let them give an instance of any one thing which they ascribe unto him as a priest, and if we prove not that it is reducible unto one of these heads, we will forego this argument. Wherefore, upon their own principles, they cannot deny but that the Lord Christ was as really and truly a priest whilst he was on the earth as he is now in heaven.

7. Secondly, Let it be further remembered, that we plead only Christ to have been a priest and to have offered sacrifice on the earth quoad ἱλασμόν, as to propitiation, or the expiation of sin, granting on the other side that he is still so in heaven quoad ἐμφανισμόν, as to appearance and representation. Wherefore, whatever our adversaries do or can ascribe unto the Lord Christ as a priest, which in any sense, or by virtue of any allusion, can be looked on as a sacerdotal act, is by us acknowledged and ascribed unto him. That which is in controversy ariseth from their denial of what he did on the earth, or of his being a high priest before his ascension into heaven; which is now further to be confirmed.

When and where he made reconciliation and atonement for us, or for our sins, then and there he was a priest. I do not know that it is needful to confirm this proposition; for we intend no more by acting of the priest's office but the making atonement for sin by sacrifice. He that hath power and right so to do is a priest by the call and appointment of God. And that herein principally consists the acting of the sacerdotal power, we have the consent of the common sense of mankind. Nor is this expressly denied by the Socinians themselves. For it was the principal if not the sole end why such an office was ordained in the world, Heb. 5:1. But this was done by the Lord Christ whilst he was on the earth; for he made atonement for us by his death. Among other testimonies to this purpose, that of our apostle is irrefragable, Rom. 5:10, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." He distributes the mediatory actings of Christ on our behalf into his death and his life. And the life which he intends is that which ensued after his death. So it is said, "He died, and rose, and revived," Rom. 14:9. He was dead and is alive, Rev. 1:18. For he leads in heaven a mediatory life, to make intercession for us, whereby we are saved, Heb. 7:25. Upon this distribution of the mediatorial actings of Christ, our reconciliation unto God is peculiarly assigned unto his death: "When we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son." Reconciliation is sometimes the same with atonement, Heb. 2:17; sometimes it is put for the immediate effect of it. And in this place [Rom. 5] the apostle declares that our being reconciled and receiving the atonement are the same: καταλλαγέντες, … τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν, verses 10, 11. But to make atonement and reconciliation is the work of a priest. Unless this be acknowledged, the whole instructive part of the Old Testament must be rejected; for the end of the priest's office, as we observed, was to make atonement or reconciliation. And that this was done by the death of Christ, the apostle doth here expressly affirm. He slew the enmity, made peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles unto God in one body, by the cross, Eph. 2:15, 16. Our adversaries would have the reconciliation intended to be only on our part, or the reconciling us unto God; not on the part of God, or his reconciliation unto us. But as this is false, so it is also, as to our present argument, impertinent; for we dispute not about the nature of reconciliation, but the cause and time of its making. Whatever be the especial nature of it, it is an effect of a sacerdotal act. Nor is this denied by our adversaries, who plead that our conversion to God depends on Christ's offering himself to God in heaven, as the effect on the cause. And this reconciliation, whatever its especial nature be, is directly ascribed to the death of Christ. Therein, therefore, was he a priest and offered sacrifice. Besides, the especial nature of the reconciliation made by the death of Christ is sufficiently declared; for we are so reconciled by Christ as that our sins are not imputed unto us, 2 Cor. 5:19, 21; and that because they were imputed unto him when he was made a curse for us, Gal. 3:13,—when he hung on the tree, and bare our sins in his own body thereon, 1 Pet. 2:24. And then he gave himself λὐτρον, "a ransom," Matt. 20:28, and ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Tim. 2:6, a price of redemption for us; and his soul was made a sin-offering, Isa. 53:10,—that is, "sacrificium pro reatu nostro," "a sacrifice for the expiation of our guilt." And this he did as the sponsor or surety, or "the mediator of the new covenant," Heb. 9:15; and therefore he must do it either as the king, or as the prophet, or as the priest of the church, for within these offices and their actings is his mediation circumscribed. But it is manifest that these things belong unto neither of the former; for in what sense can he be said to pay a price of redemption for us in the shedding his blood, or to make his soul an offering for sin, to make reconciliation by being made sin and a curse for us, as he was a king or a prophet? In like manner and to the same purpose we are said to have "redemption in" (or "by") "his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," Eph. 1:7; to be "justified by his blood", Rom. 5:9; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19. Now, redemption, forgiveness and justification, consisting, according to our adversaries, in our delivery from the punishment due unto sin, it is an effect, as they also acknowledge, of the sacerdotal actings of Christ. But they are all said to be by his blood, which was shed on the earth. Besides, it is in like manner acknowledged that the Lord Christ was both priest and sacrifice; for, as it is constantly affirmed, he "offered himself," Heb. 9:14, Eph. 5:2. And he was a sacrifice when and wherein he was a propitiation; for propitiation is the end and effect of a sacrifice. So the apostle distributes his sacerdotal acts into propitiation and intercession, 1 John 2:1, 2. His making oblation and being a propitiation are the same. And wherein God made him a propitiation, therein he was our propitiation. But this was in his death; for God set him forth "to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," Rom. 3:25. Our faith, therefore, respecting Christ as proposed of God to be a propitiation,—that is, making atonement for us by sacrifice,— considers him as shedding his blood unto that end and purpose.

8. Thirdly, The Lord Christ entered into the holy place, that is, heaven itself, as a high priest, and that with respect unto what as a high priest he had done before; for when the apostle teacheth the entrance of Christ into heaven by the entrance of the high priest into the sanctuary, as that which was a prefiguration thereof, he instructs us in the manner of it. Now, the high priest was already in office, completely a high priest, before his entrance into the most holy place, and was not admitted into his office thereby, as they pretend the Lord Christ to have been by his entrance into heaven. Yea, had he not been a high priest before that entrance, he would have perished for it; for the law was, that none should so enter but the high priest. And not only so, but he was not, on pain of death, at any time to go into the sanctuary, but with immediate respect unto the preceding solemn discharge of his office; for he was not to enter into it but only after he had, as a priest, slain and offered the expiatory sacrifice, some of the blood whereof he carried into the most holy place, to complete and perfect the atonement. Now, if the Lord Christ was not a priest before his entrance into heaven, if he did not enter thereinto with respect unto, and on the account of, the sacrifice which he had offered before without the holy place, in his death and blood-shedding, all the analogy that is between the type and the antitype, all that is instructive in those old institutions, is utterly destroyed, and the apostle, illustrating these things one by another, doth lead us unavoidably into misapprehension of them. For whosoever shall read that, as the high priest entered into the most holy place with the blood of bulls and goats, which he had sacrificed without, to appear in the presence of God, in like manner Jesus Christ, the high priest of the church, called of God unto that office, by the one sacrifice of himself, or by his own blood, entered into the holy place in heaven, to appear in the presence of God for us, will understand that he was a high priest and offered his sacrifice before he so entered into the heavenly sanctuary, or he must offer violence unto the plain, open sense of the instruction given unto him.

9. Fourthly, Other priests, who never entered into the sanctuary, were types of Christ in their office and the execution of it; which if he was not a priest on earth, nor thereon offered his sacrifice or executed his office, they could not be; for nothing they did represented the appearance of Christ in heaven. And this is evident in his principal type, Melchizedek; for he did so eminently represent him above Aaron and his successors as that he is peculiarly called a priest after his order. Now, Melchizedek discharged his office entirely, and an end was put unto his priesthood, before there was any sanctuary erected, to be a resemblance of the holy place where into Christ, our high priest, was to enter. And whereas our adversaries say that he is called a high priest because of an allusion that was between what he doth for the church and what was done by them, if his priesthood and sacrifice consisted in his entrance into heaven and presenting or offering himself there in glory unto God, there was no allusion at all between it and what was done by him whom the Scripture expresseth as his principal type, namely, this Melchizedek, who had no sanctuary to enter into, whereby there might be any allusion between what he did and what was done by Jesus Christ. Moreover, all the priests according to the law, in all their sacrifices, especially those that were solemn and stated for the whole people, were types of Christ; for whereas the original institution of all expiatory sacrifices, or sacrifices to make atonement for sin, was merely with respect unto, and to prefigure, the sacrifice which Christ was to offer, without which they would have been of no use nor signification, nor had ever been instituted, as being a kind of worship no way suiting the divine nature without this relation; and whereas the Lord Christ, with respect unto them, is called the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," as I have proved elsewhere; the priests that offered these sacrifices must of necessity be types of him in his.

Crellius replies hereunto: "Vult Socinus (1.) publica et stata sacrificia, atque imprimis anniversarium, figuram fuisse sacrificii Christi; cætera vero sacrificiorum nostrorum spiritualium. (2.) Nam et nos istiusmodi sacrificia, quibus intervenientibus peccata expiantur, seu remissio peccatorum ex Dei benignitate obtinetur, offerimus: (3.) sacerdotem etiam summum esse verum Christi summi sacerdotis typum, (4.) cæteros vulgares sacerdotes nobis qui etiam sacerdotes sumus, censet respondere; qua de re mirum est si quisquam dubitet, cap. x. ad Grot. part. 21, p. 413."

(1.) It is acknowledged that other stated and solemn sacrifices besides the anniversary expiation were types of the sacrifice of Christ. But these were offered by the ordinary priests, as Num. 28:15, 22, 30, 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, and were completed without the most holy place, no entrance into it ensuing thereon; for they consisted entirely in the death and bloodshedding of the sacrifices themselves, with their oblation on the altar. How, then, could they typify Christ and his sacrifice, if that consisted not at all in his death and blood-shedding, which they did represent, but in his entrance into heaven, and presenting himself there unto God, which they did not represent at all? This concession, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ was typified by any sacrifices whereof no part nor remembrance was carried into the sanctuary, destroys the whole hypothesis of our adversaries. (2.) Nothing that we do is, in any sense, such a sacrifice as whereby sin is expiated. And although our faith is the means whereby we are interested in the one sacrifice of Christ by which our sins are expiated once and for ever, and we thereby, according unto God's appointment, obtain the forgiveness of our sins, yet no duties of ours are anywhere called sacrifices, but such as are fruits of gratitude for the pardon of sin, received by virtue of that one sacrifice of Christ. (3.) The high priest was a true, real type of Christ, but not his only type; Melchizedek was so also, and so were all the ordinary priests of the house of Aaron, who served at the altar. (4.) He is greatly mistaken in his last assertion, whereof he gives no other proof but only "Qua de re mirum est si quisquam dubitet;" and this is, that the priests under the law were types of all Christians, and their sacrifices of ours, and that "this belongeth unto the economy of the new covenant." For I do not only doubt of it, but also expressly deny it, and that on such grounds as will leave none for admiration in any sober person; for,—[1.] All the priests of the house of Aaron were of the very same office with the high priest. Aaron and his sons were at the same time called to the same office, and set apart in the same manner, Exod. 28:1 and 29:9. If, therefore, the high priest was in his office the type of Christ, the other priests in their office could not be types of us, unless we have the same office with Christ himself, and are made mediators with him. [2.] The sacrifices offered by the other priests were of the same nature with that or those which were offered by the high priest himself; for although the entrance once a year into the most holy place was peculiar unto him, yet he had no sacrifice of any especial kind, as burntoffering, sin-offering, or trespass-offering, peculiar unto him, but the other priests offered the same. If, therefore, the sacrifice of the high priest was a type of the sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifices of the other priests could not be types of ours, unless they are of the same kind with that of Christ, which is not yet affirmed. [3.] The truth is, the whole people under the law were types of believers under the gospel in the highest of their privileges, and therefore the priests were not so. We are now "kings and priests;" and the apostle Peter expressing this privilege, 1 Pet. 2:5, doth it in the words spoken of the body of the people or church of old, Exod. 19:6. Nothing, therefore, is more vain than this supposition.

Fifthly, The principal argument whereby we prove that Christ was a priest on the earth, is taken from the nature of the sacrifice which he offered as a priest. But whereas this cannot be duly managed without a full consideration and debate of all the properties, ends, and concernments of that sacrifice, which is not our present subject nor design, it must, as it was intimated before, be transmitted unto its proper place.

10. It remaineth that we consider the pretences and pleas of our adversaries in the defence of their opinion. It is that, I confess, which they have no concernment in for its own sake, being only a necessary consequent of their judgment concerning the office of the priesthood itself. Wherefore, for that the most part they content themselves with a bare denial that he was a priest on the earth, the proof of their negation they mix with the description of the office and its discharge. Wherefore, to show how little they are able to prove what they pretend unto, I shall represent their plea in the words of one of the chief masters of that sect, that the reader may see what is the true state of the controversy between them and us in this matter, which they industriously endeavour to conceal, and then consider their proofs in particular. This is Valentinus Smalcius, in his book De Regno Christ. cap. xxiii., which is, De Christi Sacerdotio, whose words ensue:—

"Deinde considerandum etiam est (1.) totam hanc rem, quæ per sacerdotii vocabulum in Christo describitur, esse figuratam, qua scilicet explicantur ea quæ sub veteri fœdere olim extabant. Quemadmodum enim sub veteri fœdere Deus pontifices esse voluit (2.) qui causam populi apud Deum agerent: sic etiam quia Jesus Christus causam populi divini in cœlo agit ideo ipse sacerdos, et hoc opus illius, sacerdotium, appellantur. (3.) Potest hoc totum ex eo apparere si consideretur in sola, quodammodo, Epistola ad Hebraeos, Christi, quatenus sacerdos est, et sacerdotii ejus mentionem fieri; et tamen impossibile est alios apostolos in suis scriptis rei tam insignis, sine qua Christi dignitas consistere nequit, nullam mentionem facere."

Ans. (1.) It is not much that I shall observe on these words, and I shall therein principally respect the perpetual sophistry of these men. It is somewhat plain, indeed, that all things spoken about the priesthood of Christ are figurative, and nothing real or proper; and therefore he speaks of it as a thing utterly of another nature that is intended, only in Christ it is described "per sacerdotii vocabulum,"—"by this word, the priesthood." But the sober Christian reader will judge whether there be nothing but a mere occasional abuse of that word intended by the Holy Ghost in that full and large description which he hath given us of this office of Christ, its duties, acts, adjuncts, and exercise, with the importance of these things unto our faith and consolation. (2.) Who would not think these expressions, first concerning the high priest, "Qui causam populi apud Deum ageret," "Who should deal with God on the behalf of the people," and then concerning Christ, "Qui causam populi divini in cœlo agit," "Who pleads the holy people's cause in heaven," were so far equivalent, especially the one being produced in the illustration of the other, as that the things signified should, though they be not of the same kind, yet at least some way or other agree? But no such matter is intended; for in the first proposition God is expressly asserted as the immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of the high priest under the law, according to the Scripture; but in the latter, "causam populi in cœlo agit," which is ascribed unto Christ, nothing is intended but the exercise of his love and power in heaven towards his people for their relief,—which is a thing quite of another nature. By these contrary senses of seeming equivalent expressions, all analogy between the old priesthood and that of Christ is utterly destroyed. (3.) It is falsely pretended that this office of Christ is not formally mentioned by other divine writers besides the apostle in this Epistle unto the Hebrews. He is expressly called a priest in the Old Testament by the way of prophecy, and all acts of this office are expressly mentioned and declared in sundry other places of the New Testament, which have been before produced. And although it becomes not us to call the Spirit of God to an account, or to expect an express reason to be assigned why he teacheth and revealeth any truth more directly and expressly in one place of the Scripture than in another,—it being an article of our faith that what he doth he doth wisely, and on the most rational motives,—yet we are not altogether in the dark unto the reason why the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ was more openly and plainly taught in this Epistle than in any other place of Scripture. It was the prefiguration of it and preparation for it which the church of the Hebrews had received in their Mosaical institutions which was the occasion hereof; and whereas the whole economy of their priesthood and sacrifices had no other end or use but to prefigure and represent those of the Lord Christ, upon his coming and the accomplishment of what was typified by them they were to cease and to be removed out of the church. But those Hebrews, by the long use of them, had contracted an inveterate persuasion that they had an excellency, use, and efficacy in the worship of God, upon their own account, and were therefore still to be continued and observed. On this occasion the declaration of the nature and use of the priesthood of Christ in the church was not only opportune and seasonable, but necessary and unavoidable. It was so, that those Hebrews who did sincerely believe the gospel, and yet supposed that the old legal institutions were in force and obligatory, might be delivered from so pernicious an error. And in like manner it was so with respect unto them who, being satisfied in their cessation and removal, were to be instructed in what was the design of God in their institution, and what was their use; whereby they might at once discern that they were not a mere burden of chargeable and unuseful outward observances, and yet how great and excellent a glory was exhibited in their stead now under the gospel. Besides, whereas God was now giving up the whole Scripture unto the use of the church, what better season or occasion could be taken to declare the harmony and relation that is between the old testament and the new, the analogy between the institutions of the one and the other, the preparations that were made in the shadows of the one for the introduction of the substance of the other, and so at once to present a scheme of divine wisdom and grace in both, than this of the instruction of the church of the Hebrews in their translation out of the one state into the other, which was peculiar to them, and wherein the Gentiles had no share? These things, I say (with holy submission to the sovereign will and wisdom of the Holy Ghost), rendered this time and place most convenient for the fixing and stating the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ in a peculiar manner.

But our author adds: "Quod igitur ipse Christus, cum adhuc mortalis esset, promisit, 'se futurum cum suis singulis diebus usque ad consummationem seculi;' 'se eos non relicturum orphanos,' sed 'eis daturum os et sapientiam, cui nemo possit resistere;' et quod idem ex mortuis resuscitatus dixit Johanni, 'Ne metuas, ecce vivo in secula seculorum;' et divo Paulo, 'Ne metuas, sed loquere et non tace, quia ego tecum sum;' quod denique apud apostolos est, Jesum Christum caput esse ecclesiæ, et ecclesiam esse ejus corpus, ecclesiam ab eo foveri, Christum nos liberare a futura ira, hoc est auctori Epistolæ ad Hebræos Jesum Christum pontificem nostrum esse." Add, hereunto what he instructs us in a little afterwards: "Ipse Christus et sacerdos factus est et oblatio; hoc est, absque figuris loquendo; quando Christus in cœlum ascendens factus est immortalis et cum Deo habitare cœpit in loco illo sanctissimo; cœpit nostræ salutis curam talem gerere, qualem se gesturum antea promiserat."

Ans. This is in some measure plain dealing, and needful to the cause wherein these men are engaged; for although no great matter, at first view, seems to be contained herein, yet upon the truth of what he avers depends all the opposition they make unto the real sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. Hence, therefore, it is evident what is the true state of the controversy between these men and us about the priesthood of Christ. It is not, indeed, about the nature of that office, nor about the time and place of its exercise, though they needlessly compel us to treat about them also; but the sole question is, whether Christ have any such office or no. For if this be all they grant which this man asserts, as indeed it is,— namely, "That the Lord Christ, upon the account of some actings of his, which are no one of them properly or peculiarly sacerdotal, is only called a high priest figuratively by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,"— then indeed he neither hath nor ever had any such office at all. And this is the true state of our controversy with them, and with all by whom the satisfaction of Christ is denied, namely, whether he be the high priest of the church or no. And herein the Holy Ghost himself must answer for us and our profession.

This, then, is the substance of what they intend: The power, love, and care which the Lord Christ exerciseth in heaven towards his church makes him to be figuratively called our high priest; and in the same manner he is said to offer himself to God. But whence, then, comes it to pass, that whereas, according to the notion and understanding that is given us of the nature of these things (priest and sacrifice) in the Scripture,—suited unto the apprehension of all mankind about them, and which they answer or they are nothing,—there is no similitude or likeness between them and what Christ was and did, they are expressed by these terms, which are apt to lead unto thoughts of things quite of another kind than (as it seems) are intended? Why this, saith Smalcius, was "ex nimio figurate loquendi studio,"—"out of an excessive desire in the holy writers to speak figuratively;" an account which whether any wise man will, or good man ought to be satisfied withal, I do much question. And yet, according to Smalcius, they much fail in their design. For whereas no wise man doth ever use figurative expressions unless he judge them necessary to set off the things he intends to express, and to greaten the apprehension of them, it is, if we may believe this author, unhappily fallen out otherwise with the writers of the New Testament in this matter; for instead of heightening or enlarging the things which they intended by all their figurative expressions, they do but lessen or diminish them. For so he informs us: "Hoc tum ob alias causas, tum ob hanc etiam hic primum annotare voluimus ut sciamus in istis figurate loquendi modis, quantumvis fortasse cuipiam videri possit, Christo summam in cis præstantiam tribui; tamen minus ei tribui quam res est." No men, certainly, could ever have steered a more unhappy course. For no doubt they designed to express the excellency of Christ and the usefulness of his mediation in these things unto the church; but in the pursuit of it they wholly omit those plain and proper expressions whereby they might have fully declared it, to the comfort of the church and the establishment of our faith, and betake themselves absolutely unto such figurative expressions as whereby the dignity of Christ is diminished, and less is ascribed unto him than is due. Certainly men have used to make they bold with the Scriptures and their own consciences who can satisfy themselves with such imaginations.

But yet when all is done, all this, as hath been manifested before will not serve the turn, nor disprove our assertion, that the Lord Christ was a priest whilst on the earth; for all the things which they thus ascribe unto him were then discharged by him. Wherefore we shall further consider what direct opposition they make thereunto.

11. It is no matter at all whom we fix upon to call to an account herein. Their wits are barren in a peculiar manner on this subject, so that they all say the same things, one after another, without any considerable variation. The reader, if he please, may satisfy himself herein by consulting Socinus, Volkelius, Ostorodius, Smalcius, Moscorovius, Crellius, and Schlichtingius, in the places before cited. I shall therefore confine myself to him who hath last appeared in the defence of this cause, and who seems to have put the newest gloss upon it. This is Lud. Woolzogen., in his Compend. Relig. Christianæ, sect. 51, whose words ensue:—

"Præterea etiam hoc nobis paucis attingendum est quod sacerdotale Christi munus non bene intelligant illi qui statuunt Christum sacrificium expiatorium pro peccatis nostris in cruce peregisse et absolvisse. Nam in veteri fœdere, cujus (1.) sacrificia fuere typi sacrificii Christi, non fuit factum sacrificium (2.) expiatorium in mactatione victimæ seu pecudis, sed tantum fuit præparatio quædam ad sacrificium. Verum in eo (3.) consistebat sacrificium quando pontifex maximus cum sanguine ingrediebatur in sanctum sanctorum, atque. (4.) eum Deo offerebat et sacrificabat. Sacrificare enim proprie non est (5.) mactare, sed offerre et Deo sacrare."

Ans. (1.) It is acknowledged that the sacrifices under the old testament were types of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, all of them were so which were expiatory or appointed to make atonement. Although, therefore, these men are wary, yet they stand in such an unstable and slippery place as that they often reel and betray themselves; for if all expiatory sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, most of them being perfect and complete without carrying any of their blood into the sanctuary, that of Christ must be so before his entrance into heaven. (2.) As for what he affirms of the expiatory sacrifice,—that is, the anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation,—that it consisted not in the slaying of the sacrifice, which was only a certain preparation thereunto, it is either sophistical or false. It is sophistical, if by "mactatio pecudis" he intend only the single act of slaying the sacrifice: for so it is granted that was not the entire sacrifice, but only a part of it; the oblation of it on the altar was also required unto its perfection. But it is false, if he intend thereby all that was done in the offering of the beast, namely, its adduction to the altar, its mactation, the effusion of its blood, the sprinkling thereof, the laying of the offering on the altar, the consumption of it by fire,—all which belonged thereunto. All these things, even all that preceded the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, are distinguished from what was done afterwards, and are to be considered under that head which he calls the slaying of the victim. But then his assertion is false, for the sacrifice consisted therein, as we have proved. (3.) That the expiatory sacrifice did not consist in the entrance and appearance of the high priest in the most holy place with the blood of the beast offered is manifest from hence, because he was commanded to offer the beast in sacrifice before his entrance into the sanctuary, which was a consequent of the sacrifice itself, and represented the effects of it. (4.) That the high priest sacrificed the blood unto God in the sanctuary, as he affirms, is an assertion that hath no countenance given unto it in the Scripture, nor hath it so from any common notion concerning the nature of sacrifices; and the atonement that is said to be made for the most holy place by the sprinkling of the blood towards the mercy-seat was effected by the sacrifice as offered before, whereof that ceremony was a sign and token. (5.) That to sacrifice and to slay are the same in the original, so as that both these actions,—that is, sacred and common slaying,—are expressed ofttimes by the same word, I have before demonstrated. But withal I grant that unto a complete sacrifice the ensuing oblation on the altar was also required. Hence was the sacrifice offered and consecrated unto God.

But he endeavours to confirm his assertion with some testimonies of our apostle: "Et hoc est quod ait auctor Epistolæ ad Hebræos: (1.) 'In secundum tabernaculum' (id est, in sanctissimum sacrarium) 'semel quotannis solus pontifex, non absque sanguine ingreditur quem offert pro seipso et pro populi ignorantiis,' Heb. 9:7, quibus verbis elucet pontificem maximum tum demum sacrificasse, et obtulisse quando sanguinem intulit in sanctissimum sanctuarium, et cum eo coram Deo apparuit. Hæc apparitio ac oblatio, demum (2.) expiatio et redemptio a peccatis consenda est. Ita igitur in Christo quoque qui et pontifex maximus et simul etiam victima esse debuit mactatio corporis ejus in cruce, nihil aliud quam præparatio fuit ad verum sacrificium. Sacrificium autem ipsum peractum est tum, cum in sanctuarium cœleste ingressus est cum proprio sanguine suo, ibique Deo seipsum tanquam victimam obtulit et exhibuit, necnom tanquam æternus pontifex pro nobis apud Deum intercedit, nostram expiationem procurat."

Ans. (1.) I understand not the force of the proof from this testimony unto the purpose of our author. The high priest did enter into the most holy place with the blood of the sacrifice. What will thence ensue? Had it been common blood before, and now first consecrated unto God, something might be collected thence in compliance with his design; but it was the blood of the sacrifice which was dedicated and offered unto God before, the blood of the sacrifice that was slain, which was only carried into the most holy place and sprinkled there, as the representation of its virtue and efficacy. In like manner, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that was slain and sacrificed for us, after he had through the eternal Spirit offered himself unto God, procuring thereby redemption for us in his blood, entered into heaven, there in the presence of God to represent the virtue of his oblation, and by his intercession (prefigured not by the offering, but by the sprinkling of blood) to make application thereof unto us. (2.) Redemption did in no sense follow the appearance of the high priest in the most holy place typically, nor the entrance of the Lord Christ into heaven really; but it is constantly assigned unto his death and bloodshedding,—which invincibly proves that therein alone his oblation of himself did consist. See 1 Pet. 1:18, 19. Expiation may be considered either in respect of impetration or of application. In the first regard it did not follow, but precede the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, for the sacrifice was offered without to make atonement for sin; and the same atonement was made in sundry sacrifices whose blood was never sprinkled in the most holy place. In the latter sense alone it may be said to follow it, which we contend not about.

His next testimony is from Heb. 9:11, 12, the words whereof he only cites, without attempting any improvement or application of them: "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."

Had he attempted any proof from these words, he would have found himself at a loss where to have fixed the argument. Wherefore, he contents himself with the bare sound of the words, supposing that may seem to favour his pretension. For it is plain from this text,—(1.) That Christ entered into heaven as our high priest, and not that he might become so; which is sufficient to scatter all his imaginations about this office of his. (2.) That he entered into heaven "by his own blood," which was shed and poured out in his sacrifice before that entrance; for really he carried no blood with him, as the high priest did of old, but only was accompanied with the efficacy and virtue of that which was shed before. (3.) He is said to have "obtained eternal redemption" before his entrance into heaven, that being expressed as past upon his entrance; which invincibly proves that his sacrifice was antecedent thereunto.

His last testimony is Heb. 8:4, which most of them make use of as their shield and buckler in this cause: "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." But the plain design and intention of the apostle allows them no relief from these words. He had proved invincibly that the Lord Christ was to be "an high priest," and had showed in some instances the nature of that office of his. Here, to confirm what he had so declared, he lays it down, by the way of concession, that if there were no other priesthood but that which is earthly and carnal, or which belonged unto the Judaical church, he could not have been a priest at all, which yet he had proved that it was necessary he should be. And the reason of this concession he adds, from the possession of that office by the priests of the house of Aaron, and the enclosure of its propriety unto them, as verse 5. Hence it unavoidably ensues that he must have a priesthood of another kind, or different from that of Aaron, which he expressly asserts as his conclusion, verse 6. A priest he must be; a priest after the order of them who offered gifts according to the law he could not be: and therefore he had another, and therefore a more excellent, priesthood.

12. Unto these testimonies, which are commonly pleaded by them all to deprive the Lord Christ of this office, at least whilst he was on the earth, I shall add the consideration of one, with the argument from it, which I find not insisted on by any of them but only Smalcius alone: De Reg. Chr. cap. xxiii., "Hanc Christi oblationem auctor Epistolæ ad Hebræos volens innuere, et aperte demonstrare eam tum demum esse perfectam cum Christus in cœlum ascendit, ait, 'Talem decebat nos habere pontificem, sanctum, labe carentem, impollutum, segregatum a peccatoribus, et excelsiorem cœlis factum;' et Paulo infra ait, 'Jesum Christum semetipsum Deo immaculatum obtulisse per Spiritum æternum;' intelligens per ista epitheta, 'Sancti, labe carentis, impolluti, segregati a peccatoribus, et innocentis,' non Christi sanctitatem quoad mores, hac enim semper perfecte Christus fuit præditus, etiam antequam pontifex noster factus est, sed eam sanctitatem quæ Christi naturam respicit. Quæ Christi natura, quamdiu in terris fuit, qui fratribus per omnia fuit assimilatus infirmitati et mortalitati obnoxia fuit; nunc vero ab ea in omnem æternitatem libera est."

Ans. (1.) These properties of "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," which the apostle ascribes unto our Lord Jesus as our high priest, Heb. 7:26, as also his offering himself "without spot," chap. 9:14, this man ascribes unto Christ as exalted in heaven, in contradistinction unto what he was whilst on the earth; for thence he taketh his argument that he was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, namely, because he was so holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, in heaven. Now, if it do not hence follow that he was impure, defiled, guilty, like other sinners, whilst he was on the earth, yet it doth undeniably,—and that is the matter contended for,—that he was not holy, harmless, and undefiled, in the sense here intended by the apostle. How this can be freed from open blasphemy I am not able to discern.

(2.) He is not secured by his ensuing distinction, that the Lord Christ was before, whilst on the earth, perfectly holy as to his manners, but that the epithets here used respect his nature: for, not to assign all these properties unto the nature of Christ from the instant of his conception, or to deny them to belong thereunto, is no less contrary to the Scripture and really blasphemous than to deny him to have been holy with respect unto his life and conversation; for he was the "holy thing" that was born of the Virgin, and as he was born of her, by virtue of the miraculous creation and sanctification of his nature in the womb, whereof I have treated elsewhere at large.

(3.) Here is a supposition included, that all the difference between Christ and us, whilst he was in this world, consisted only in the use of his freedom unto the perfect obedience wherein we fail and come short. That his nature was absolutely holy and impeccable, ours sinful and defiled, is cast out of consideration; and yet to deny this difference between him and us is no less blasphemous than what we before rejected.

(4.) Christ in this world was indeed obnoxious to sufferings and death itself, as having a nature, on that account, like unto his brethren in all things. But to suppose that he was obnoxious to infirmity and mortality because he was not yet holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, is injurious unto his person, and derogatory from his love; for it was not from the necessity of his own condition in human nature that he was exposed unto sufferings or unto death, but he became so by voluntary condescension for our sakes, Phil. 2:5–8. We are obnoxious unto these things on our own account, he only on ours.

(5.) In the death of Christ, when he shed his blood, he was ἀμνὸς ἄμωμος καὶ ἄσπιλος, "a lamb without spot and without blemish," 1 Pet. 1:19; and he is said to offer himself ἄμωμον τῷ Θεῷ, "without spot to God," Heb. 9:14. He was therefore no less so before and in his death than after. And it is a surprisal, to be put, by one professing himself a Christian, to the work of proving the Lord Christ to have been, in his entire nature, in this world holy and harmless.

(6.) He doth not in the least relieve himself from those impieties by his ensuing discourse on Eph. 5:26, 27, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." He contends that the making of the church "holy and without blemish" in this place concerns its glorified state, because it is therewithal said to be a "glorious church." In the same sense, therefore, as he affirmeth, is Christ said to be "holy" when he was "glorified," and not before. But he adds herein to the weight and number of his preceding enormities: for in what sense soever the church is said to be made holy or to be sanctified, whether it be in grace or as instated in glory, it is so by being washed and cleansed from the spots, stains, and filth which originally it had; but to ascribe such a sanctification or making holy unto the Lord Christ is the highest blasphemy imaginable.

We may therefore firmly conclude, with the whole church of God, according unto the Scripture and the nature of the thing itself, that the Lord Christ was a priest and executed his priestly office whilst he was on the earth, even then when he offered up himself unto God with strong cries and supplications at his death on the cross.

13. SECONDLY, That which yet remains, as belonging unto our present design, is the consideration of the direct and immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or the exercising his mediatory power by virtue of his priestly office. This we have declared before and proved, namely, that it is God himself. Our meaning is, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the high priest of the church, acts on its behalf with God, doing those things which are to be done with him, according to the covenant before explained. As a king and prophet he acts in the name of God towards us; as a priest he acts towards God on our behalf. This the whole economy of the Aaronical priesthood doth confirm, and the very nature of the great duties of this office, oblation and intercession, do necessarily infer. Doth Christ offer himself in sacrifice unto God, or unto us? Doth he intercede with God, or with us? It is no small evidence of the desperate cause of our adversaries, that they are forced to put uncouth and horrid senses on these sacerdotal duties, to accommodate them unto their sentiments. So after that Smalcius hath told us that these things were thus expressed in Scripture "ex nimio figurate loquendi studio," so traducing the wisdom and sobriety of the penmen thereof, he adds in the explication of that figurative expression, as he would have it, of Christ's intercession, "Cum igitur de Christo dicitur eum pro nobis interpellare, aliud nihil dicitur quam eum potentia illa sua sibi data curam nostri gerere." It is not easily conceivable how a greater violence can be offered unto a sacred expression. By such interpretations it is possible to put an orthodox sense on all the writings of Smalcius. But in the vindication of his exposition of Christ's intercession he adds, "That the power which Christ exerciseth in his care of the church, and all his actings towards it, he received of God, and therefore in the use of it he is said to make intercession for us;"—that is, he doth one thing, and is said to do another! What he doth is not said, —namely, that he acts his power towards the church; and what he doth not, that he is said to do,—namely, to make intercession with God for us. The arguments whereby we confirm the truth asserted have been before declared and confirmed. Wherefore, to put a close unto this whole disputation, and to give the reader a specimen of the subtlety and perpetual tergiversation of our adversaries in this cause, wherein also occasion will be administered further to explain sundry things relating unto this office of Christ, I shall examine strictly the whole discourse of Crellius on this subject, and therein give a peculiar instance of the sophistical ability of these men in evading the force of arguments and testimonies from the Scripture.

14. Grotius proves that the first actings of Christ as a priest were towards God, from Heb. 5:1, and chap. 8:3, whereunto Crellius replies, cap. x. part. 3, p. 474, "Postrema hæc verba ita sunt comparata, ut per se Socini sententiæ non repugnent, Grotium nil juvent. Fatetur enim Socinus quoque et satis clare docet auctor D. Heb. 2:17, actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, et sic ejus sacrificium expiatorium esse ex eorum numero quæ pro homine fiant apud Deum; ut alia hic deductione, cum de Christi sacrificio quæratur, non fuerit opus. De sensu ergo quæritur, cum de verbis constet."

Ans. (1.) The agreement which he pretends between Grotius and himself in this matter, as to the words of the apostle, is enough, with sober men, to put an end unto the whole controversy. The question is, Whether Christ, as a high priest, did act principally towards God, or towards us? 'Towards God,' saith the apostle, and Grotius from him. 'We are agreed,' saith Crellius, 'about these words; all the question is about their sense.' As how? 'Namely, whether they signify that Christ exerciseth this office towards God, or towards us;' for this is that which, after a long tergiversation, he comes unto: Pag. 477, "Talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat apostolus quæ circa nos primo versetur non vero circa Deum;"—"The apostle intimateth plainly, that such is the (sacerdotal) acting of Christ in this matter that it is first exercised towards us, and not towards God." Whatever, therefore, is otherwise pretended, the question between him and us is about the words themselves and their truth, and not about their sense and meaning. For if it be true that the Lord Christ καθίσταται ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, "is appointed as a priest for men," (or on their behalf,) "in the things belonging unto God," or to be done with God, Heb. 5:1, and that in an especial manner, εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας, chap. 8:3, "to offer gifts and sacrifices unto God," the whole sense is granted which we plead for. If he is not so appointed, if he doth not do so,—that is, if he was not ordained to act with God in the behalf of men, if he did not offer sacrifice for them or the expiation of their sins,—then are not these words true, and it is in vain to contend about the sense of them. (2.) I shall only further observe the sophistry of that expression, "Actionem Christi qua sacerdos est,"—"That action of Christ whereby he is a priest;" for he intends that Christ is only denominated a priest from some action he doth perform, whereas in truth he performs those actions by virtue of his priesthood, and could not perform them were he not a priest in office.

Having laid this foundation, Crellius enters upon a large discourse, wherein he doth nothing but perpetually divert from the argument in hand, and by a multitude of words strive to hide himself from the sense of it. Take him when he supposeth himself out of its reach and he speaketh plainly. So he doth, Lib. de Caus. Mort. Christi, pag. 7: "Cum consideratur Christus ut sacerdos, etsi similitudinem refert ejus qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine præstet, si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes eum talem esse sacerdotum qui Dei nomine aliquid nobis præstet;"—"When Christ is considered as a priest, although he bears the likeness of one that doth something with God on the behalf of men, yet, if you look more narrowly into the matter itself, you will find that he is such a priest who acts towards us in the name of God." If we may but hold him to this plain declaration of his mind (which, indeed, he must keep to or lose his cause), the vanity and tergiversation that are in all his other evasions and pretences will be evident.

15. But because we have resolved on a particular examination of all that can be pretended in this matter on the behalf of our adversaries, we may consider his plea at large in his own words: "(1.) Grotius ita verba ea proculdubio intelligit, ac si dictum esset sacrificiis moveri Deum, ut hominibus benefaciat, et expiatoriis quidem, ut remissionem peccatorum iis concedere velit. (2.) Hoc si in eam sententiam accipiatur in quam alias Grotius hujusmodi verba in nostro negotio sumere solet, ut significet, (3.) Deum iratum ac pœnas expetentem, ita tamen ut non aversetur omnes iræ deponendæ rationes, sacrificiis placari, et ad ignoscendum flecti. (4.) Non est id de omnibus sacrificiis expiatoriis, etiam proprie dictis admittendum, imo de iis quæ proprie ita appellantur, (5.) Minus, quam de aliis ab homine profectis precibus scilicet, pœnitentia, animi humilitate seu cordis ac spiritus contritione. (6.) Neque enim sub lege eo pacto Deum movebant sacrificia ab ipso præscripta præsertim semper: sed cum Deus jam antea decrevisset se intervenientibus illis sacrificiis delicta et lapsus velle condonare, iis oblatis, (7.) vi decreti istius effectus ille apud Deum consequebatur, etiamsi is actu non irasceretur, imo ideo potius offerebantur sacrificia, ne, si forte negligerentur, irasceretur, quam ut jam iratus placaretur. Quod si vocem movendi, et cæteras ei similes, eo modo hic accipias, quem nos alibi etiam explicuimus, ut significent conditione præstita apud Deum efficere, ut in decreti sui effectum hominibus benefaciat, et reatum peccati deleat pœnamque avertat, sive per se, ut sub lege, sive per alium ut novi fœderis tempore, id quod Grotius ait, tum de sacrificiis legalibus, tum etiam de morte Christi; (8.) quam sacrificium, et quidem expiatorium esse fatemur, licet per se in hoc genere nondum perfectum, verum est."

Ans. (1.) There was no need at all of this large and ambiguous repetition of the whole state of the controversy about the nature and use of sacrifices in this place, where the argument concerned only the proper object of Christ's sacerdotal actings. And he knew well enough the mind of Grotius, as to the sense of what he asserted; only it was necessary to retreat into this long diversion, to avoid the force of the testimonies produced against him. (2.) The sense which we plead for, as to the expiation of our sins by Jesus Christ, is plain and evident. God was the author and giver of the law and the sanction thereof; the supreme, righteous, holy rector, governor, judge of all persons and actions relating thereunto; the dispenser of the rewards and punishments, according to the sense and sentence of it. Man transgressed this law by sin, and did what lay in him thereby to cast off the government of God. This rendered him obnoxious unto the sentence, curse, death, and punishment, threatened in the sanction of the law; which God, as the righteous, holy, supreme governor of all, was, on the account of his righteousness, authority, and veracity, obliged to execute. This respect of God towards the transgressors of his law the Scripture represents under the notion and expression of his anger against sin and sinners; which is nothing but the engagement of his justice to punish offenders. On this account God would not, and without the violation of his justice and veracity could not, forgive sin, or dismiss sinners unpunished, without an atonement made by an expiatory sacrifice; wherein his justice also was to be satisfied and his law to be fulfilled. And this was done by the sacrifice of Christ, according to the tenor and compact between God and him before described. (3.) The advantage that Crellius seeks from the words of Grotius, in the entrance of his discourse, of God's being "angry with sinners, yet not so as to depose all thoughts of reconciliation," will stand him in no stead; for he intended no more by them, but that although God was provoked, as the righteous governor of his creatures, yet he determined not absolutely to destroy them, when he had found a ransom: that is, provided his justice were satisfied, his honour repaired, his law fulfilled,—all which his own holiness and faithfulness required,—he would pardon sin, and take away the punishment from sinners. That whereby this was done was the sacrifice of Christ; whose object, therefore, must be God himself, and consequently he is so of all his sacerdotal actings. (4.) All expiatory sacrifices did, in their way and kind, procure the remission of sins by the way of atonement, and not otherwise. Nor can Crellius give any one instance to the contrary. Their first and principal design was to atone and pacify anger, or to turn away wrath and punishment as due from the displeasure of God; and therefore their first effect was towards God himself. (5.) The means on our part for the obtaining of the actual remission of sin, and a sense thereof in our consciences, as prayer, repentance, humiliation, contrition of heart and spirit, are not means of making atonement, wherein there is always the nature of compensation and satisfaction. If we apply ourselves unto God by them unto any such purpose, or rest upon them unto that end, we render them useless, yea, an abomination. Yea, they are all enjoined unto us on supposition of atonement made for sin in and by the blood of Christ; and so they were from the foundation of the world. From the giving of the first promise, wherein the Lord Christ was a "lamb slain," as to the efficacy of his future oblation, God forgave sins for his sake, and not otherwise. And the duties enjoined us in order unto actual remission, or a sense of it in our consciences, are all to be founded in the faith of that atonement, which is supposed, and is to be pleaded in them all; for in Christ alone it is that we have "redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." But all this is a diversion from the present argument and inquiry, which concerns only the proper object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, and not the nature of his sacrifice, which shall be spoken unto elsewhere. And those very duties whereby we make application for actual remission or pardon, upon the atonement made, have God for their object also; and so must every thing which hath an influence of any kind into the pardon of sin. (6.) The account he gives concerning the influence of expiatory sacrifices in procuring the pardon of sin is false and sophistical. That God, not being angry with sin, should decree that upon the offering of sacrifices he would pardon it, and would have such sacrifices offered, not because he was angry, but that he might not be so, is a vain imagination; for all sacrifices were offered for sins that were past, and all application we can make unto God by the sacrifice of Christ for the pardon of sin respects it as past. And therefore were sacrifices instituted to make atonement; that is, to avert and turn away wrath already deserved and due to the offender. To say this was done, not because God was angry at sin, but that he might not be so, when it was already committed, is inconsistent with truth and reason: for God is angry with sin because it is committed; and if he be not so, he is never angry with it. That which we intend hereby is, that he forbids every sin, and hath annexed a threatening of punishment unto that prohibition. This is his anger. (7.) That expression, "vi decreti," that God pardons sin by virtue of his decree, contains sundry secrets of these men's doctrine. For it is intimated that all that belongs unto the expiation of sin by sacrifices was a mere free constitution; nothing in them, nothing which they had any respect unto, or in the atonement made by them, was any way necessary on the account of the righteousness or holiness of God. For this decree of God is nothing but a voluntary constitution of this order of things, that sacrifices should go before remission, and not contribute any thing thereunto. There is therefore nothing in that discourse, "Conditione præstita apud Deum efficere ut vi decreti sui," etc., but that sacrifices, by God's appointment, were an act of worship antecedent to the remission of sins. It is true, there is nothing done, in the whole matter of the expiation of sin, but it depends on God's decree and appointment; but the things disposed of by virtue of that decree have this relation one to another, that the sacrifice of Christ shall be, and is, the procuring cause of the pardon of sin. God may therefore be said to pardon sin "in decreto suo," as the original disposing cause; but he doth it not without respect to the sacrifice of Christ, as the meritorious procuring cause. It is not, therefore, merely an antecedent condition, making way for the accomplishment of a voluntary decree; but it is a moral cause, appointed of God in his decree for the effecting of pardon. (8.) I wonder with what confidence he here affirms that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice, when he knew himself that he did not believe it so to be. That Christ offered but one sacrifice both they and we agree. But that this was not in his death, that it was in heaven, when he presented himself unto God,—that indeed it consists in the power which he hath, as glorified and exalted, to free us from the punishment due unto sin,—is the sum of what he pleads for in this part of his book. Both here and elsewhere he endeavours to prove that Christ was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, that his death was only a prerequisite condition (and so was his life also) unto the offering of himself. But from all these open contradictions he shelters himself by saying that it was not as yet perfect in this kind. But why doth he say that it was not a perfect sacrifice, while he believes that it was none at all? Or if it be not a perfect sacrifice, was it a part of the perfect sacrifice that was afterwards completed in heaven? If it was so, then was Christ a priest whilst he was on the earth,—then did he offer himself unto God in his death,—then was God the object of that sacerdotal act, as we contend and plead for. If these things belong not unto it, then it was neither a perfect sacrifice nor imperfect, neither complete nor incomplete, neither part of a sacrifice nor the whole; which we shall find him granting in his next words:—

16. "Sed si loquaris de (1.) sacrificio seu oblatione Christi expiatoria perfecta, quam in cœlis peragit, quamque D. auctor ad Heb. explicat, et Grotius qui eam ostensionis appellat, agnoscit; de ea aliquid amplius dici debet. (2.) Neque enim ea ad remissionem peccatorum intervenit, tanquam nuda quædam conditio, aut res ad alterum tantum, qui remissionem reipsa præstet, aliqua ratione impellendum comparata; sed potissimum tanquam vera causa efficiens quæ vi sua remissionem peccatorum nobis a Deo decretam præstat; et efficacia sua eorum vim quam ad nos damnandos et divinis suppliciis obnoxios reddendos habent, extinguit ac delet."

Ans. As the former discourse was a mere diversion from the present question and argument, so this is partly a begging of the question in general, and partly a concession of what he labours to avoid the inconvenience of. For,—(1.) It is a plain begging of the main question, to say and suppose that the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ consisted only in what he performed in heaven; the contrary whereunto we have sufficiently proved before, and which they shall never evince whilst the Scripture is owned to be the word of God. (2.) The latter part of his discourse plainly grants what he would seem to deny, but proves it not. He denies that the sacrifice of Christ respects God so much as a condition pre-required unto the forgiveness of sin. But he will have it to be the efficient cause of pardon; that is, the Lord Christ, being intrusted with power from God unto that end and purpose after his ascension into heaven, doth take away our sin, or free and deliver us from the punishment due unto it. Now, though this be true, yet this is not the oblation or sacrifice of himself. Nor can any man reconcile the notion of a sacrifice with this actual efficiency in delivering us from the punishment of sin, so as that they should be the same. Hereof it is granted that we, and not God, are the first and immediate object; but that the oblation or sacrifice of Christ consists herein is wholly denied, nor doth he here attempt to prove it so to do. (3.) What account, on this supposition, can be given of the intercession of Christ, which is his second great sacerdotal duty? Doth this also consist in a powerful efficiency in us of what God hath decreed concerning his pardoning, blotting out, and extinguishing of sin? Is this the nature of it, that whereas God had decreed freely to pardon sin, and to take away the punishment due unto it, this intercession is his powerful taking away of that punishment, and his actual delivery of us from sin? Is it possible that an act and duty of this nature should be expressed by a word of a more opposite signification and importance? For my part, I value not that use of right reason, that these men so much boast of, which is exercised in giving a wrong signification unto words expressive of so weighty truths and duties? Who but they can possibly understand any thing, by Christ's intercession in heaven at the right hand of God, but his procuring from him grace, mercy, and pardon for us, by virtue of his antecedent oblation? And God is the object of his actings herein.

17. But he proceeds to give countenance unto what he hath asserted: "(1.) Itaque quemadmodum oblationis vox, ut infra clarius patebit, ad hanc Christi actionem (2.) ob similitudinem cum legalibus sacrificiis transfertur; ita et loquutio hæc (3.) quod peragatur vel fiat, apud Deum pro hominibus. (4.) Similitudo in eo est (5.) quod quemadmodum legalia sacrificia ideo Deo offerebantur (6.) et coram ipsius vultu perficiebantur, ut iis peractis (7.) vi decreti ipsius homines, pro quibus offerebantur, remissionem peccatorum ab ipso obtinerent; ita (8.) interveniente Christi oblatione, seu apparitione coram Dei vultu (9.) per sanguinis fusionem facta, et cum summo salutis nostræ perficiendæ desiderio conjuncta, (10.) homines a Deo vi decreti ipsius, ipsiusque virtute, quam eum in finem Christo concessit, liberationem a pœnis obtinent. (11.) Indicare nempe hac loquutione Spiritus Sanctus voluit remissionem peccatorum quam Christus in cœlis apud Patrem degens nobis præstet, a Deo ejusque benignitate primo proficisci, et quicquid ad eam in nobis perficiendam sit, id totum ipsius virtute et auctoritate, Christo, qui ut eam adipisceretur, et sic nos a peccatorum pœnis reipsa liberare posset, sanguinem suum fuderat, eoque cum desiderio cœlum fuerat ingressus, datâ peragi. (12.) Itaque ut id exprimat non modo Christi in cœlos ingressum atque ad Deum accessum, per quem factum est ut ad dextram ipsius consideret, et plenam peccata nobis remittendi potestatem obtineret, sed et perpetuam apud ipsum permansionem, cum salutis nostræ cura conjunctam ita considerat, ac si eâ Deus aliqua ratione moveretur ad remissionem peccatorum nobis vi decreti sui concedendam, (13.) Et sic inter hanc et illam actus quidam ipsius Dei, propitium se nobis exhibentis, et nos a pœna liberantis interveniret; cum tamen ipse Christus potestate sibi, a Deo, et olim jam decreta, et in cœlum ingresso donata, id totum, quod ad nos a pœna liberandos pertinet ejus nomine faciat."

Ans. (1.) The name of oblation and sacrifice is not applied at all unto that action of Christ which this man intends, namely, his appearance in heaven; which, as to its efficacy on our behalf, belongs unto his intercession, Rom. 8:34; 1 John 2:1. There is more also in the sacrifice of Christ than the transferring the name of oblation unto any action of his which is not so indeed. These little artifices and insinuations, which when discovered are a mere begging of the thing in question, make up the principal parts of Crellius' defence. Wherefore,—(2.) The name of oblation is not transferred unto that action of Christ wherein his sacrifice did truly and really consist, namely, his death and blood-shedding, merely by an allusion taken from the legal sacrifices; but it is so called by the Holy Ghost because it is so indeed, as having the true, proper nature of a sacrifice, so as that it was the pattern or idea in the mind of God of all the other sacrifices which he appointed, and which, therefore, were ordained unto no other end but to prefigure the nature and exhibit the efficacy thereof. (3.) That expression, of doing things "apud Deum," or doing for men the things that appertain unto God, cannot, on the hypothesis of these men, be ascribed unto Christ out of a similitude unto what was done by the priests of old: for whatever they did, as priests, they did it unto God; but the Lord Christ, according to these men, did nothing as a priest unto God. And how can that which he doth towards us be called by the name of what the priests did of old towards God, because of its likeness thereunto, seeing there is no likeness between these things? for what similitude is there between the offering of a bloody sacrifice to God, thereby to make atonement for the guilt of sin, and the actual powerful deliverance of us from the punishment due to sin? What such similitude, I say, is there between these things, as to warrant their being called by the same name, which answers unto one of them properly, and to the other not at all? That, therefore, which is here pretended amounts to no more than this, namely, that whereas he doth nothing in his offering with God, but with men, he is said to offer himself by reason of a similitude in what he did unto what the priests did in their oblations, who did nothing with men therein, but with God! As, therefore, we know that the sacerdotal acting of Christ was not called an oblation, offering, or sacrifice, merely out of the similitude that was between it and the sacrifices of old,—although we grant that indeed there was more than a mere similitude between them, even a typical relation, the one being designed to represent the nature and exhibit the virtue of the other, whence they are both properly called by the same name,—so, according to the opinion of our adversaries, we deny that there is any such likeness or similitude between what Christ doth in taking away of sin and what was done by the priests of old, as that any denomination could or ought thence to be taken, or any name assigned unto it. As for the death of Christ, Crellius peremptorily denies it to have been Christ's perfect expiatory sacrifice; and for his offering himself in heaven, he affirms that whatever other appearance may be of it, yet indeed it is wholly conversant about us, and not about God. It is therefore in vain to inquire after reasons and grounds on which Christ may be said to do those things in his sacrifice "quæ sunt apud Deum peragenda," when it cannot be truly spoken at all, and is directly denied by them. (4.) Let it therefore be observed, that the similitude that was between the sacrifices of the law and that of Christ was not a bare natural or moral similitude, whence the one of them might be called by the name of the other, that name belonging to the one properly, unto the other metaphorically; but whereas there is a generical identity between them, both of them agreeing in the same general nature of being proper sacrifices in their own special kind, the one of them, namely, those of the priests under the law, were instituted and ordained to represent the other, or the sacrifice of Christ, whence arose a similitude between them, as there was a real difference on many other accounts. And the relation that was between them, which these men would have to be a similitude only, arose from these three respects:—[1.] That the sacrifice of Christ was the pattern in heavenly things according unto the idea whereof all legal sacrifices were appointed to make a representation; that is, God having designed his Son Jesus Christ to be the high priest of his church, and to expiate their sins by the sacrifice of himself, did appoint the legal priesthood and sacrifices, obscurely to delineate that design before its actual accomplishment. And indeed here lies the true difference between us and the Socinians in this matter; for they suppose that God having, for certain ends, instituted the office of priests and duty of sacrificing in the church of old, some things that were done afterwards, and are yet done by Christ, because of their allusion unto, and some kind of likeness with, what was done in and by those institutions, are called by their names. We judge, on the other hand, that God originally designing the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that he might represent his purpose therein, to be accomplished in the fulness of time, and grant an outward means or pledge unto the church of an interest in the nature, efficacy, and benefit thereof, and for no other end, appointed the typical priesthood and sacrifice of the old testament, as hath been proved at large before. Wherefore, [2.] Seeing they were types appointed of God to set out, teach, and prefigure, the sacrifice of Christ, whatever was in them that did not arise from the natural and indispensable imperfections of them by whom they were offered and the nature of the offerings themselves, but was directly of divine institution, was in the mind and will of God instructive beforehand of the nature and use of the sacrifice of Christ. If, therefore, those priests offered sacrifice to God, so did Christ; if they made atonement by blood, so did Christ; if those sacrifices consisted in the slaying, and oblation on the altar, of the victim, so did Christ's in his death and blood-shedding; if God was the principal immediate object of their sacerdotal actings, so he was of Christ's. [3.] They were, by God's ordinance, figuratively communicative of the real virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, God appointed them unto this end, that the church making use of them in the faith of the promise concerning the future sacrifice of Christ, should through them be made partakers of the benefits thereof, they being means of communicating spiritually what they did carnally represent. Crellius thinks that all sacrifices were only conditions required antecedently unto the free pardon of sin, which he calls the "pardoning of sin by virtue of God's decree," but that they had no influence unto the procuring of the remission of sin; which is, in effect, that they did no way make atonement for sin. But then no man living can give an account of their special nature, or why God did institute a condition of that kind, when any duties or acts of obedience of any other sort would have served unto the same end. It is plain that all expiatory sacrifices did at least make a representation of commutation, satisfaction, pacification of wrath, turning away of evil, the procurement of mercy, reconciliation, and atonement; and if they did nothing of this nature, it is hard to find any reason for their institution. Wherefore the similitude invented by Crellius is of no consideration in this matter, but is only found out on purpose to destroy the true analogy that is between the legal sacrifices and that of Christ. (5.) There is indeed, according to the opinion of these men, no similitude between them; for the legal sacrifices did not consist in the representation of the beast sacrificed, much less in any exaltation and power that it had afterwards, but in the slaying and offering of it on the altar, whereunto there is not the least resemblance in that which they call the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ (6.) The offering of sacrifices "coram Dei vultu," "before the face of God," is true, but not in his sense; for he confines it unto the presence of God in the sanctuary only, whereas that which was done at the altar was also said to be done before God, and nowhere else were any sacrifices offered. (7.) The use of legal sacrifices here granted by him is indeed none at all; for the decree of God,—that is, the free pleasure of God,—is made the only cause of the remission of sin, without respect unto any procuring cause or means whatever. And if propitiatory or expiatory sacrifices had no influence into the remission of sin, if they made not atonement for it, they were of no use at all. Nor is there any thing fond in the application of these things to Christ and his sacrifice; for,—(8.) The oblation or sacrifice of Christ was not the same with, nor did consist in, his appearance in the presence of God in heaven, but was antecedent thereunto. He "offered himself," and afterwards "appears in the presence of God for us," as is plainly expressed. (9.) This oblation of Christ is said to be "per sanguinis fusionem,"—"by the shedding of his blood;" but how or in what sense? The words are used to keep unto some seeming compliance with the Scripture, wherein our redemption, forgiveness, freedom from wrath,—all the effects of the sacrifice of Christ,—are frequently and signally ascribed unto his blood-shedding. But is there any intention to intimate that the effusion of his blood had any interest or concern in his oblation? We know it had not, according to these men, but only as an antecedent condition unto his exaltation, as was his whole life and humiliation. (10.) The manner of the expiation of sin by the sacrifice of Christ, here at large described by Crellius, is absurd, dissonant from reason, and contradictory to the Scripture in itself, and in the manner of its declaration sophistical. The words are to this purpose, "That Christ, as a priest, offered himself unto God through the effusion of his blood, to obtain for us mercy, pardon of sin, and deliverance from punishment." But the meaning or sense intended is, that being exalted to heaven, after his death, by the power that he hath received from God he pardons our sins, and delivereth us from the punishment due unto them. But this is such a way of teaching things as becometh neither the holy penmen of the Scripture, nor any man of common sobriety. And to increase the fondness of the story, Christ is said to do these things with God, or towards God, when men are the express objects of what he doth; and this in his ensuing discourse he directly asserts and contends for. (11.) This is that, it seems, which the Holy Ghost would intimate by these expressions, of Christ's being a priest, of his offering himself to God an expiatory sacrifice, of our redemption thereon by his blood in the forgiveness of our sins, namely, "That whatever Christ doth in heaven towards the pardon of sin, or the pardon of sin which he affords us, proceedeth in the first place from the kindness and benignity of God, because he hath given power unto him for that end and purpose." But if no more be indeed intended in this expression, if the sacrifice of Christ did in no sense procure our redemption, or pardon of sin, or deliverance from the punishment due unto it, to what end the Holy Ghost should use these expressions, why he should largely and particularly insist upon them and their explanation for our instruction, seeing the only thing intended by them,—namely, that the pardon of our sins proceeds originally from divine benignity and grace, and that the Lord Christ, as mediator, hath received all his power from God the Father,—is taught and expressed a thousand times more plainly and clearly in other places and words, and whereas these things and expressions signify no such things as those intended, no man living can divine. Let him that can, assign a tolerable reason why the exercise of the power of Christ in heaven, because it is given him of God, should be called his offering, sacrifice, or oblation of himself, as the high priest of the church. All men freely acknowledge, that whatever power Christ hath, as mediator, to forgive us our sins, actually to free us from the punishment deserved by them, he received it of God, who gave all things into his hands, because he laid down his life for his sheep; but that his priesthood consists in the exercise of this power, and that the exercise thereof with love and care is his oblation and sacrifice of himself, being indeed only a consequent thereof, and the means of the administration of its virtue and efficacy, is a fond imagination. (12.) In the mention of those things whereby God should at least seem to be moved to grant unto us the pardon and remission of sin, Crellius utterly omits the death of Christ, reckoning up only his entrance into heaven, his great desire of our salvation, his access unto God, and sitting at his right hand; wherein he seems not much to aim at a compliance with the Scripture, which everywhere ascribes all these effects directly and immediately to the death and blood-shedding of Christ. (13.) The sum of what remains of his discourse amounts to this, "That although in what Christ did for us there is an appearance as though God, upon the consideration of what was done by him, was moved to pardon sin and free us from punishment" (which yet exclusively unto his death is not true), "yet indeed there is no such thing intended; but only this is so, that Christ doth all this by virtue of the power he received from God, and in his name." The sum of the whole is, that there is an appearance of Christ's being a high priest, an appearance of his offering himself a sacrifice to God for us, an appearance of his acting with God on our behalf, an appearance of his procuring redemption and pardon of sins for us; but in truth and really there is nothing intended but that he hath received power from God, after his humiliation, to pardon our sins and deliver us from punishment, which he exerciseth with love and tenderness. But yet all this while he hath not directly denied that Christ, in his offering himself as a priest, had first respect unto God,—which was the only thing in question,—and that because he had not long before granted that the Scripture in express terms affirms it; but he would make a show of reasons why though the thing be not so indeed, yet it is mentioned as though it were; which is first to assign a falsehood to the holy writers, and then to excuse it. His ensuing discourse in this place, wherein he designs to prove that God is said to do something for Christ, which yet he doth himself (as the subduing of his enemies, and the like) by virtue of the power he hath received of God, is so exceedingly impertinent unto the present occasion, as being designed only for a diversion from the cause in hand, as that I shall pass it by, and come to that part of his disputation wherein he begins to speak his mind with more openness and freedom than before.

18. Pag. 477: "Interdum tamen D. ille scriptor ad Heb. de Christi sacerdotio et oblatione agens, et rem nudam ante oculos nobis volens ponere, neglecta aliquantum allusionis ac comparationis cum ritibus legalibus concinnitate, talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat, quæ circa nos primo versetur, non vero circa Deum."

Ans. (1.) This is plain dealing, and to the purpose. To what end have we been led about by all the long discourse which we have examined? Grotius affirmed and proved that the actings of Christ as a priest did in the first place respect God, and not us. This Crellius durst not grant, lest he should prejudice his cause; nor at first deny, until he had endeavoured to cast a mist before the eyes of the reader. But now, supposing him sufficiently entangled or engaged, he expressly denies what Grotius affirmed. Be it so, then, that we, and not God, are the immediate objects of Christ's sacerdotal actings: then did he offer himself to us, and not unto God; and maketh intercession with us, and not with God;—for these are the only general sacerdotal actings of Christ, and if God be not the object of them, he did neither offer himself unto God nor intercede with him. But (2.) he supposeth that all which seems to be asserted unto that purpose proceeds from the neat fitting of these things by way of allusion unto the legal sacrifices; which when the apostle neglecteth, he declares his intention to be quite otherwise. Let us consider the testimonies he produceth in the confirmation of this bold assertion:—

"Docet id, ut supra vidimus, locus ipsius sub finem cap. ii., atque imprimis ver. ult., ubi modum explicat, quo Christus, tanquam pontifex in iis quæ apud Deum, peccata populi expiet. Modus vero iste est, 'In quo enim ipse passus est cum tentaretur, potest iis qui tentantur auxiliari.' 'Potest,' inquit; hoc est, ad id faciendum pronus est, aut id facere libenter solet. Idem docent verba cap. vi. itidem sub finem quæ eandem cum illis sententiam continent."

Ans. (1.) He is mistaken in supposing that the apostle, in the places alleged, doth omit or neglect the consideration of the analogy between the ancient priesthood and sacrifice and those of Christ. For, in the first place, chap. 2:17, these words, Πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, εἰς τὸ ἰλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἀμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ,—"A faithful high priest in things pertaining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people," doth respect both the office and whole work of the priests of old, in making atonement for sin by expiatory sacrifices. And in chap. 4:14, the entrance of Christ into heaven is asserted in opposition unto the entrance of the legal high priest into the carnal sanctuary. (2.) The help which the Lord Christ gives unto us, expressed chap. 2:18, is founded on and proceedeth from the reconciliation or atonement which he is affirmed to have made in the first place, verse 17. (3.) The question under consideration is, whether the oblation of Christ doth in the first place respect God or us; and to prove that it respects us, and not God, he cites this testimony of verse 18, wherein there is no mention of his oblation at all, and omits the preceding words, where his oblation is so described by its effects as to prove unavoidably that it respected God in the first place. (4.) The succour which Christ affords unto them that are tempted is no act of his priestly office; but it is the act of him who is our priest, and who was, as enabled thereunto by virtue of the reconciliation he had made by his oblation as a priest, so in the discharge of that office he underwent and suffered those things whereby he is disposed and inclined to put forth his power in our behalf. (5.) In chap. 4:15, 16, the apostle treats not of the oblation of Christ, but of his personal qualification fitting him for his office. And that which he hath a principal eye unto is his intercession, and the fruits of it; and we shall conclude that this is with God, at least until our adversaries can affix some other tolerable sense unto that expression, or make intelligible their new kind of intercession with God for us, by acting his own power and love towards us.

But he yet undertakes to prove that what is here mentioned is the whole of what Christ doth as a priest for us, his discourse whereof, because it compriseth the substance of all that he hath to plead in this cause, I shall at large transcribe and examine:—

19. "Ad ea vero confirmanda et illustranda adhibentur a D. auctore ea quæ subjiciuntur initio, cap. v., ut indicat particula 'enim,' quæ initium istud cap. v., cum fine capitis præcedentis connectit. Quare ex illis constare potest quid D. auctor sibi velit verbis, quatenus ea ad Christum accommodari debent, quæ Grotius hic urget, eaque de causa totum locum adscribemus. Est autem hujusmodi, 'Non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris; sed tentatum per omnia secundum similitudinem absque peccato. Accedamus ergo cum fiducia ad thronum gratiæ, ut accipiamus misericordiam et gratiam ad opportunum auxilium. Omnis enim pontifex ex hominibus acceptus pro hominibus constituitur in iis quæ ad' (vel 'apud') 'Deum, ut offerat dona et victimas pro peccatis: qui possit moderate condolere ignorantibus et errantibus; siquidem etiam ipse circundatus est infirmitate,' etc. Ubi vides illis cap. v. verbis, quod 'pontifex constituatur in iis quæ ad Deum,' ut 'offerat dona et victimas pro peccatis,' nihil in præcedentibus respondere præter illa, quod a Christo accepturi simus 'misericordiam et gratiam ad opportunum auxilium;' quod sit cum nobis tentatis, ac vehementer trepidantibus succurrat, et ne malorum pondere pressi tentationi succumbamus, ac peccatorum nostrorum pœnas luamus, efficit; aut tunc, cum impii suorum scelerum dant pœnas, ipse nos tuetur, et ne cum illis una pernicie involvamur, potestate sua divina intercedit. Quod idem, ut vidimus, cap. ii. indicatur in verbis illis, ubi expiationis, quam Christus apud Deum peragit, modus explicatur. At hujusmodi actio circa nos primo versatur, non vero circa Deum, nisi improprie loquamur."

Ans. (1.) I have at large transcribed this whole passage, that we may see what is the only foundation which he builds upon, or argument he hath to prove that the sacerdotal acts of Christ respect us in the first place, and not God. The whole of what he pleads issues from this single supposition, that the apostle in the beginning of the fifth chapter intends nothing but the confirmation of what he had delivered in the end of the fourth; and therefore, that the offering of "gifts and sacrifices for sins" unto God is only his giving help and succour unto us in our temptations,—which is the most uncouth expression and explication of one thing by another that ever was in the world. Now, this supposition is evidently false, and the connection of the discourse, which he feigneth at pleasure, every way insufficient to enforce us unto such a fond and brainless exposition of the words. That which alone he pleads in justification of his assertion, is the introduction of this new discourse by the causal particle γάρ, "for;" as though it intimated that the apostle designed no more but to give a reason of what he had before laid down concerning the help and succour which we have in all our temptations and sufferings from our high priest. This, indeed, he doth also, in the description he gives us of the nature and duties of this office; wherein he doth not merely explain what he had before delivered, but adds other considerations also of the nature and acts of that office, confirming our faith and expectation therein. But his principal regard is to the whole subject-matter treated of, as being now to give his reasons why he doth so industriously instruct them in the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ. And this use of the same particle in his transitions from one thing to another,—wherein it respects not so much what immediately went before in particular, as the relation of what ensues unto his whole design, and is also sometimes redundant,—we have manifested by sundry instances in our Exposition. Wherefore, the apostle having occasionally digressed from the priesthood of Christ, which he had proposed unto consideration in the end of the second chapter, through the third and unto the 14th verse of the fourth, he there returns again unto his first design. And this he doth by declaring in general the glory of Christ as a priest, his eminency above those of the order of Aaron, and the spiritual advantage which we receive, not from his being a priest, but from his being such a person, so qualified for the discharge of his office, as he is there by him described. Having expressed this in the last verses of the fourth chapter, and thereby stirred up the Hebrews to a diligent attention unto what he had to instruct them in with respect hereunto, in the beginning of the fifth he lays the foundation of all his subsequent discourses about the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, in a general description of that office and the duties thereof, with what belongs essentially thereunto in all that are partakers thereof, adding some particular instances of the imperfections that attended it in the priests under the law, making application of the former unto Jesus Christ, and discarding the consideration of the latter. As, therefore, in the end of the fourth chapter, he prepares his way unto his intended declaration of the nature and duties of the sacerdotal office of Christ, by declaring in general the advantage we have by his susception of that office who was the Son of God incarnate; so here, in the beginning of the fifth, he adds a description of the power, acts, and duties of that office, whence our benefits by it do originally arise. There is therefore no such coherence between these passages as should warrant us to look on Christ's helping and assisting of them that are tempted to be the same with his offering gifts and sacrifices to God. Yea, suppose that the apostle in these words doth only give the reason of what he had before asserted,—which is all that is pleaded by Crellius to impose this nonsensical sense upon us,—yet thereby also his pretension would be everted; for the reason of any thing differs from the thing itself. And if he proves only that we may have help and succour from Christ, as our high priest, on this ground, that every priest doth offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, it doth not follow that his helping of us and his offering of sacrifice are the same, yea, it doth that they are distinct and different, the latter being given in as a reason and cause of the former. (2.) What is here further discoursed concerning our deliverance by the power and care of Christ from sin and destruction, even then when wicked and impenitent persons shall be utterly destroyed, is true; but yet it is not his offering of sacrifice unto God for sin, but it is a consequent thereof. The consideration of it is indeed a matter of great consolation and encouragement unto believers, but it is not to be asserted unto the exclusion of that which is the fountain of all the benefits which we receive by his mediation. And now it may be considered whether any thing be here offered by this author, either to prove that we are the first object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or in answer unto the testimonies alleged that God a one is so. But he hath yet somewhat more to add, and therefore proceeds:—

"Animadvertendum autem est in loco utroque, sed apertius in posteriori ob (1.) allusionem ad sacerdotium legale et similitudinem quandam quæ Christo cum pontificibus Aaronicis intercedat, (2.) ad Christum etiam accommodari infirmitatem, quæ in pontificibus istis exstiterit, quaque ii impelli debuerint ad aliorum infirmitates tanto promptius expiandas; cum tamen in Christo (3.) quippiam alterius generis infirmitatibus illis, quæ nihil aliud erant quam lapsus et ignorantiæ seu delicta ex infirmitate profecta, opponatur, nempe tentationes seu afflictiones ipsius, quarum memor, nobis tentatis atque afflictis succurrere tanto promptius soleat."

Ans. (1.) This man seems to aim at nothing but how he may evade the force of truth, and therefore lays hold of every appearing advantage, though indeed contradicting himself therein; for in the entrance of his production of these testimonies, he tells us, "That they are such places as wherein the apostle, neglecting the allusion unto the priesthood of old, doth plainly and openly declare the nature of that of Christ." But here, in the pressing of those testimonies, he pleads the express mention of that allusion as the principal reason of his exposition. (2.) It is not true that those infirmities of the priests of old which consisted in their sins and ignorances are any way accommodated unto Christ. The things here spoken of the nature of the priest's office, and the discharge of it by them with whom it was intrusted, are distributed unto the subjects intended, according to their capacity. In the priests of old there were such infirmities as that they had need to offer for their own sins also; in Christ there was no such thing, nor any thing that answered thereunto. But in all priests there were infirmities, such as inseparably attend our human nature in this mortal life; and these our high priest, Christ Jesus, was subject unto, whence he was liable to be tempted and to suffer. These the apostle doth not accommodate to Christ, but really ascribes unto him. See verses 7, 8, with our exposition. (3.) This one concession of Crellius, that Christ our high priest, that is, as our high priest, was subject unto temptations and sufferings,—which he must be, or there is no similitude between him and the high priests of old in this matter of infirmities,— utterly overthrows his whole cause; for he was no way subject unto them but as and whilst he was in this world. His glorified nature in heaven is liable neither to temptations nor sufferings. If therefore any of these infirmities were found in him as our high priest, which the apostle expressly affirms, and Crellius acknowledgeth, he was our high priest whilst he was on the earth. But he adds:—

"(1.) Ex quo apparet peccatis etiam illorum quos pontifices Aaronici expiare debebant, tentationes atque afflictiones nostras his locis respondere, quarum vis, (2.) quam ad nos perdendos habent dum tollitur et ab iis nos auxilio Christi eripimur, peccata nostra expiari dicuntur. (3.) Itaque non mirum est cætera quoque quae de Aaronicis sacerdotibus dicuntur, alio sensu ad Christum accommodari, et quædam de illis proprie, de Christo improprie, præstantiori tamen sensu accipi."

Ans. (1.) Where there is any mention made of the offering of Christ for us, it is constantly with respect unto our sins, and not unto our temptations and sufferings, at least not in the first place. What he is affirmed to do with respect unto them, as to the aid, relief, and deliverance which he gives us, is all consequential unto his once offering of himself to take away sin. (2.) The foundation of the inference which is here made we have already taken away, namely, that the sinful infirmities of the priests of old were accommodated unto Christ with respect unto natural infirmities, or obnoxiousness unto temptations and sufferings; which we have showed to be false. Yet hence he would infer that the sins of the people of old, for which the priests offered sacrifice, do correspond in this matter with our temptations and sufferings;—that as they offered sacrifices for real sins, so Christ's sacrifice is our relief from temptations and sufferings. The force of the reason pretended lies in this, that because the priests of the order of Aaron had sins themselves, therefore they offered sacrifices for the sins of the people, those which were truly and really so; but whereas the Lord Christ had no sins of his own, but only temptations and sufferings, therefore the sins offered for were temptations and sufferings. Nothing can be more absurdly imagined; for both those qualifications, that he "had no sin," and that he "was tempted," were necessary unto his offering for us and for our sins. Being "made sin for us, and sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, bearing our sins in his own body on the tree." Is this all, therefore, that the great discourses of Crellius concerning "the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, his being a propitiation for our sins, his offering himself unto God for us," with the like magnificent expressions of sacerdotal actings, do amount unto,—namely, that he frees us by his power from temptations and afflictions, with all the efficacy they have to destroy us? Is this, I say, to offer himself to God a true, perfect, complete expiatory sacrifice? Were it not much better wholly to deny that Christ was a high priest, or that he ever offered himself to God, than to put such strained and futilous senses on these expressions. (3.) And because these men will have it so, all things must be spoken properly of the Aaronical priests, though they were umbratile, typical, figurative, temporary, and liable to such infirmities as exceedingly eclipsed the glory of the office itself; but all things spoken of the Lord Christ to the same purpose must be improper and metaphorical, and denote things of another nature, only called by the names of priesthood and sacrifice in allusion unto them and those things, who and which were appointed and ordained of God for no other end or purpose but that they might prefigure him in the discharge of his office. And then, to salve the matter, the things so improperly assigned unto Christ must be said to be more excellent than the things that are properly ascribed unto the Aaronical priests, when indeed they are not, nor to be compared unto them; and if they were, yet would not that prove but that Aaron, though not absolutely, yet as unto the office of the priesthood, was more excellent than Christ, as being properly a priest, whereas the Lord Christ was so only metaphorically, which is a diminution as to that particular.

He closeth his discourse: "Istud adhuc antequam hinc abeamus notare libet, Paulum, Rom. 15:17, licet de munere suo apostolico loquatur, cujus vis circa homines primo versabatur, et quod, ut cum Grotio loquamur, erat pro Deo aut Christo apud homines, tamen quia ad sacrificia sacerdotiumque alludit dicere, se habere gloriationem, seu quod glorietur in Christo Jesu τὰ πρὸς Θεόν, 'in iis quæ apud Deum.' "

Ans. This observation doth no way impeach the force of the testimony produced by Grotius. He intended no more by that expression, Τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, but to declare in the words of the apostle that God was the object of what was so performed; which certainly, unless some great reason be produced unto the contrary, must be acknowledged to be the sense of the words. But Grotius proves his intention from the matter treated of, which is sacrifices; and if they are not offered unto God, and that for men, they are not at all what they are called. And in compliance with this sense the apostle respects the discharge of his conscience towards God in the work of his ministry, wherein he had immediately to do with him; for although men were the object of his ministry, yet he received it from God, and to him he was to give an account thereof. Wherefore he only declares how he had acquitted himself sincerely in that whole work, which was in an especial manner committed unto him of God, and whereof he was to give unto him a peculiar account.

20. I had sundry reasons why I chose to insist on a particular examination of these discourses of Crellius; for it is confessed that none among our adversaries have handled those things with more diligence and subtilty than he hath made use of. It was necessary, therefore, to give a specimen, as of his strength, so of his way and method, whereby he seeks to defend his opinions. And every impartial reader may see, in the discussion of what he allegeth or pleadeth, that the whole of his defence is made up of tergiversations, equivocations, and plausible diversions from the cause under debate. Besides, I have had sundry opportunities hereby to declare many things belonging to the nature and discharge of the priesthood of Christ which could not conveniently be reduced unto other heads. And I was willing, also, to cast these things into this place by themselves, to avoid all controversies as much as possible in the Exposition itself, though I constantly detect the falsehood of this man's interpretations, as those of others who either follow him or comply with him. And hereby also, perhaps, some who are less exercised in the sophistry of these men may learn somewhat how they are to be dealt withal.

———