* " Etenim moi-tem, Christus subiit, duplici ratione : partira quidem, ut foederis me- diator, sou sponsor, et veluti testator quidem ; partim ut sacerdos Deo ipsum oblaturus." Crell. de Caus. Mort. Cbristi, p. 6.
* " I'artes bujus muneris liasc sunt potissinmm; mactatio victimoe, in tabernaculum ad ohlationcm peragendam ingressio, et ex eodem egressio. Ac mactatio quidem mor- tem Cbristi violentam, sanguinisque profusionem coutinet." — Volkel. de Vera Eelig. lib. iii. cap. xxxvii. p. 145.
" [Virg. Geor. iv. 547.]
OF Christ's priestly office. 403
revises." But Crellius afterward expounds himself, and tells us that this twofold office of Christ (than which nothing can be spoken more ridiculously) of a mediator and a priest did as it were meet in the death of Christ, the one ending (that is, his being a mediator^, and the other beginning ;^ and Volkelius doth the like, Avitli a sufficient contradiction to his assertion, calling the death of Christ the begin- ning and entrance of his priesthood.^ As for his mediatorship, Crellius telleth us that it is most evident that Christ therein was " subordinate to God" (so he phrases it); that is, he was a mediator with us for God, and not at all with God for us.^ And this he proves, because he put not himself into this office, nor was put into it by us, so as to confirm the covenant between God and us, but was a minister and messenger of God, who sent him for this purpose.* But the folly of this shall be afterward manifested. Christ was given of God, by his own consent, to be a mediator for us, and to lay down his life a ran- som for us, 1 Tim. ii. 3-6 ; which certainly he did to God for us, and not for God to us, as shall afterward be evinced. But coming to speak of his priesthood he is at a loss. " When," saith he, "he is considered as a priest" (for that he was properly a priest he denies, calling it " Sacerdotii, et oblationis metaphora,") " although he seem- eth to be like one who doth something with God in the name of men, if we consider diligently, we shall find that he is such a priest as performs something with us in the name of God."'
This proof is Tapa rrjv ovvksiv xal Biaipeaiv. But this is no new thing with these men: " Because Christ, as a high priest, doth some- thing with ns for God, therefore he did nothing ^v^th God for us;" as though, because the high priest of old was over the house of God and ruled therein, therefore he did not offer sacrifices to God for the sins of the people. All that Crellius in his ensuing discourse hath to prove this by, is because, as he saith, "Christ offered not his sacrifice until he came to heaven;" which' because he proves not, nor en- deavours to do it, we may see what are the texts of Scripture urged for the confirmation of that conceit by Mr B. and others.
Seeing all the proofs collected for this purpose are out of the
' " In morte utrumque munus (mediatoris, et sacerdotis) veluti coit : et prius quidem in ea desinit, eaque confirmatur ; postremum autem incipit, et ad id Christus fuit quo- dammodo prseparatus." — P. 8.
2 " Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem, nequaquam illam perfectam absolutamque ipsius oblationem de qua in Epist. ad Hebrreos agitur, fuisse; sed principium et pra?pa- rationem quandam istius sacerdotii in coelo demum administrandi, extitisse." — Idem ibid.
3 " Jam vero satis apparet, Christum priori modo spectatum, pcnitus Deo suboi'dina- tum esse." — P. G.
* " Kcque enim vel ipsum ingessit, vel a nobis missus est ad foedus inter Deum, et nos peragendum : sed Dei, qui ipsum in hunc finem miserat, ministei-, ac internuntius liac in parte fuit." — P. 7.
^ " Cum vero consideratur ut sacerdos, — ctsi similitudinem refert ejus, qui Deo ali- quid liominura nomine prcestet, — si tamen rem ipsam penitus spectes, dcprelicndes talem eum esse sacerdotem, qui Dei nomine nobis aliquod prsestet " — P. 7.
404 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC^.
Ei;)istle to the Hebrews, I shall consider them in order as they lie in the epistle, and not as transposed by his questions with whom I have to do.
The first is in his 11th question, thus insinuated : " Why would God have Christ come to his priestly office by suffering?" Accord- ing to the tenor of the doctrine before delivered, the inference is, that until after his sufferings he obtained not his priestly office, for by them he entered upon it. The answer is, " Heb. ii. 10, 17, 18."
Ans. The apostle doth not say absolutely that it became Christ to be made like us that he might be a high priest, but that he might be a merciful high priest; that is, his sufferings and death were not required antecedently that he might be a priest, biit they were re- quired to the execution of that end of his priesthood which consists in sympathy and sufferance together with them in whose stead he was a priest. He sustained all his afflictions, and death itself, not that he might be a priest, but that being merciful, and having expe- rience, he might on that account be ready to " succour them that are tempted;" and this the words of the last verse do evidently evince to be the meaning of the Holy Ghost, " In that he himself hath suffered being tempted," etc. His sufferings were to this end of his priesthood, that he should be " merciful, able to succour them that are tempted." Besides, it is plainly said that he was a high priest, ug to /Xdffxis&ai rag a/xapriag tov Xaov, or iXdsxBffSai rov Qiov Vipi ruv d/J^apriuv, — " to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Now, that recon- ciliation was made by his blood and death the Scripture informs us: Rom. V. 10, "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;" Dan. ix. 24. So that even from this place of Scripture, produced to the contrary, it is evident that Christ " was a high priest on earth," because he was so when he made reconciliation, which he did in his death on the cross.