‘unto, as they are represented unto us by the apostle in the Epistle itself, Wherefore there would be no necessity of handling the na- ture of this office here apart, were it not for the opposition that is made unto it, and that depravation of the doctrine of the gospel con- cerning it which some have attempted; for whereas the principal de- sign of the Socinians in these things is to overthrow the sacrifice that he o as a priest, they lay the foundation of their attempt in an pan to the office itself. Itis therefore principally with respect unto them that I have here proposed the nature of that office unto consideration ; and I shall be more conversant in its vindication than in its declaration, which most Christians are acquainted withal. And — I shall proceed in this method herein:—First, I shall declare what are in general their conceptions about this office ; in opposition where-
140 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXI.
unto the truth declared in the Scripture shall be taught and vindi- cated. Secondly, I shall more particularly declare their opinions as to the several concernments of it, and consider as well their expla- nation of their own sense, with their confirmation of it, as their opposition and exceptions unto the faith of the church of God.
In the first place, they grant that the Lord Christ is our high priest,—that is, that he is so called in the Scripture; but that he is so really they deny. For this name, they say, is ascribed unto him not properly or directly, to denote what he is or doth, but by reason of some kind of allusion that there is between what he doth for us and what was done by the priests of old amongst the Jews, or under the old testament. He is therefore, in their judgment, improperly and metaphorically called a priest, as believers are said to be kings and priests, though after somewhat a more excellent manner; for he is so termed because of the good offices that he doth for the church, and not that he is or ever was a priest indeed, Hereon they say,—
Secondly, That he then entered on this office, or then began to do that work with reference whereunto,—because of its allusion to the work of the priests under the law,—he is called a priest, when, upon his ascension into heaven and appearance in the holy place, he re- ceived power from God to help, and relieve, and assist the church, in all its occasions. What he did and suffered before in the world, in his death and blood-shedding, was, by virtue of God’s decree, a neces- sary preparation unto his discharge of this office, but belonged not thereunto, nor did he there offer any sacrifice to God. Wherefore they also affirm,—
Thirdly, That this priesthood of Christ is indeed of the same na- ture with his kingly office, both of them consisting in a power, ability, authority, and readiness, to do good unto the church. Only herein there seems some difference between them, that as a king he is able to help and save us, but as a priest he is willing and ready so to do.
Fourthly, That the object of the acts of the priesthood of Christ is firstly and principally man, yea, it is only so, none of them haying God for their object, no more than the acts of his kingly power have ; for it is his care of the church, his love towards it, with the supply of his grace and mercy which from God he bestows upon it, on the account whereof he is said to be a priest, and his so doing is called the exercise of his priesthood.
This in general is the substance of what they affirm and teach con cerning this office of Christ, as we shall more particularly manifest and evince in the ensuing Exercitation. Now, if these things are so, I confess all our exposition of this Epistle, at least the principal parts of it, must fall to the ground, as being built on the sandy foundation of many false suppositions. And not only so, but the faith of the
SECT. 2. | EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 141
whole church of God in this thing is overthrown; and so are also all the common notions of mankind about the office of the priesthood and its exercise that ever prevailed in the world. And, to lay the whole fabric of truth in all instances level with the earth, the instruc- tive relation or analogy that is between the types of the old testa- ment and the substance of things declared in the new is taken away and destroyed. Wherefore it is necessary that we should diligently assert and confirm the truth in this matter in opposition to all their bold assertions, and vindicate it from their exceptions, whereby we shall fully declare the nature of this blessed office of Christ.
2. Our first difference is about the name and title, as to the signi- fication of it when applied unto Jesus Christ. And we affirm that he is properly the high priest of the church, and not metaphorically only. When I say he is properly the high priest of the church, my mean- ing is, that he is so the high priest as he is the king and prophet of the church. And look, by what means or arguments it may be proved that Christ is the true, real king and prophet of the church, and not metaphorically called so only, by the same may it be proved that he is in like manner the high priest of the church also; for both the name is in a like manner assigned unto him, and the office, and the acts of it, yea, they are so more fully and expressly than the other. And he may as well be said to be metaphorical in his person as in his offices. But I shall distinctly manage these arguments, which I challenge all the Socinians in the world to return a direct answer unto, and not by long digressions and tergiversations; a precedent for which is given them by Crellius in this case, whose sophistical evasions shall be called to a particular account afterwards.