A, Thais yap d&pysepeds 2& dvdpimrav AawCavdwevos datp avdpwarwy beitic- Taras Tu Tpos Thy Osby, iva wpoopepn OHpa re nal voiug Uatp dmapriay, saith our apostle, Heb. v. 1. What is here affirmed of the high priest (71733 12) is true in like manner concerning every priest; only, the high priest is here mentioned by way of eminence, because by him our ‘Lord Christ, as unto this office and the discharge of it, was principally represented. Every priest, therefore, is one 2& dvdpa- Trav AuwCavduevoc,— taken from amongst men.” He is “nature humane particeps,’—in common with other men partaker of human nature; and antecedently unto his assumption of his office, he is one of the same rank with other men, and he is taken or separated unto this office from among them. He is vested with his office by the authority, and according to the will of God. This office, therefore, is not a thing which is common unto all, nor can it take place in
SECT. 3-5.] PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 17
‘any state or condition wherein the whole performance of divine service is equally incumbent on all individually; for none can be “taken from among others” to perform that which those others are every one obliged personally to attend unto. But every priest, pro- perly so called, xadicraras itp dvdpéirav,—* is ordained and appointed to act for other men.” He is set over a work in the behalf of those other men from among whom he is taken; and this is, that he may take care of and perform rd zpi¢ riv @zév, or do the things that for men are to be done with God; DviOST 22, that is, to- pacify, to make atonement and reconciliation, Exod. xviii. 19. And this he was to do by offering dapé re xu? Jvoias, various sorts of “ gifts and sacrifices,” according unto God’s appointment. Now, all slain sacri- fices, as we shall manifest afterwards, were for sin. This office, therefore, could have no place in the state of innocency;: for it will not bear an aecommodation of any part of this description of one vested therewithal. .
5. I do acknowledge, that in the state of uncorrupted nature there should have been some ix2¢ rot @cot, ra apd riv &vdpwrov,—to deal with others for and in the name of God; for some would have been war- ranted and designed to instruct others in the knowledge of God and his will. This the state and condition of mankind did require; for both the first relation of man and wife, and that which was to ensue thereon of parents and children, include subordination and de- pendence. “The head of the woman is the man,” 1 Cor. x1. 3,—that is, “the husband,” Eph. v. 23; and the duty of the man it had been to instruct the woman in the things of God. For a pure nescience of many things that might be known to the glory of God and their own advantage was not inconsistent with that estate, and their knowledge was capable of objective enlargements; and the design of God was, gradually to instruct them in the things that might orderly carry them on unto the end for which they were created. Herein would he have made use of the man for the instruction of the woman, as the order of nature required: for man was originally “the head of the woman;” only, upon the curse, natural dependence was turned into troublesome subjection, Gen. i, 16. But the en- trance of sin, as it contained in it the seeds of all disorder, so it plainly began in the destruction of this order; for the woman, un- dertaking to learn the mind of God from herself and the serpent, was deceived, and first in the transgression: 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14, “ Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” From Adam being first formed, and the woman out of him and for him, she should have learned her dependence on him for instruction by divine insti- tution. But going to learn the mind of God of the serpent, she was.
VOL. XIX, 2
18 THE ORIGIN OF THE [EXERC. XXVI.
deceived. She might have learned more than yet she knew, but this she should have done of him who was her head by the law of creation. The case is the same as to the other relation, that would have been between parents and children. Yea, in this the depend- ence was far greater and more absolute; for although the woman was made out of the man, which argues subordination and depend- ence, yet she was made by the immediate power of God, man con- tributing no more to her being than the dust did to his, This gave them in general an equality. But children are so of their parents as to be wholly from them and by them. This makes their depend-_ ence and subjection absolute and universal. And whereas parents were in all things to seek their good,—which was one of the prime dictates of the law of nature,—they were, in the name and stead of God, to rule, govern, and instruct them, and that in the knowledge of God and their duty towards him. They were imp Ocod, “for God,” or in his stead unto them, to instruct them in their duty, suit- ably to the law of their creation and the end thereof. But every one thus instructed was in his own name and person to attend unto the things of God, or what was to be performed on the behalf of men; for in reference unto God, there would have been no common root or principle for men to stand upon. Whilst we were all in the loins of Adam we stood all in him, and we also fell all in him ég° 6 mévreg juaprov, Rom, v.12. But so soon as any one had been born into this world, and so should have had a personal subsistence of his own, he was to stand by himself, and to be no more, as to his covenant interest, concerned in the obedience of his progenitors; for the covenant with mankind would have been distinct with each in- dividual, as it was with angels. There might have been, there would have been, order, subordination, and subjection, among men, in re- spect of things from God unto them,—so probably there is among the angels, although the investigation thereof be neither our duty nor in our power,—but, as was said, every one; according to the tenor of the covenant then in force, was in his own person to dis- charge all duties of worship towards God. Neither could any one be taken out from the residue of men to discharge the works of reli- gion towards God for them, in the way of an office, but it would be to the prejudice of their right and the hinderance of their duty. It follows, therefore, that the office of a priest was impossible in that condition,—that is, of one who should be ordained iatp dvdpdrav r& xpos xiv @e6v,—and had any such office been possible, there would not have been in it any prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, as will afterwards appeav.