[1.] That as Aaron was a priest, so there was a necessity, from the prophecy of Ps. cx. 4, that there should be another priest. Now, if this other priest were not a priest properly so called, as Aaron was, there is no consequence in the apostle’s discourse, it proceeding on terms equivocal.
[2.] The priesthood, according to this prophecy and our apostle’s interpretation of it, was only to be changed. But if, after the re- moval of the law, there was no other proper priesthood to succeed, it was not changed, but abolished. And it is more true that there was none than that there was any; for properly there was none, though metaphorically there was.
[3.] On this supposition all the circumstances insisted on by our apostle as exceedingly observable to his purpose,—namely, that our Lord was of the tribe of Judah, and not of Levi; that he was con- stituted a priest in an especial way, and not like unto that of old,— are of no use: for there is nothing peculiar in these things, if he in- tend not a priest properly so called.
[4] It utterly enervates that invincible argument whereby the apostle proves the necessary cessation of the law and legal or Mosai- eal institutions; for he builds on this supposition, that the priest- hood being changed, the law of divine worship or service must be so also. And this unavoidably follows because of the inseparable rela- tion that was between the Aaronical priesthood and all the worship of the tabernacle. But if this other priest whom he intends was not properly, but only metaphorically so, there might be a thousand of them, and yet no necessity for the change of the law of worship en- sue. For two priests, one whereof is proper and the other meta- _ phorically so only, are consistent at the same time, but two that are properly so are not; whence our apostle says that the Lord Christ
144 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXI.
could not be a proper priest of the same nature with those of the order of Aaron whilst they continued, Heb. viii. 4.
. [5.] He is expressly said to be a priest “after the order of Mel- chisedec.” But this Melchizedek was a priest properly so called. He therefore must be so who is a priest according to the same order; for © priests of several sorts and kinds, as real and nominal only, or pro- per and metaphorical, cannot be said to be after the same order, for no orders can be more different than those whereof one is proper, the other metaphorical. This difference is not in some property and adjunct, but in the whole kind; as real and painted fire differ, or a man and his image. Besides, he is said to be a priest “after the order of Melchisedec,” so as that withal he is denied to be a priest “after the order of Aaron.” But if he were not properly so called, but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion unto a proper priesthood in what he did, the direct contrary might much rather be asserted; for there was more allusion between Aaron in his priest- hood and him, and our apostle gives more instances of it, than be- tween him and Melchizedek. And if it be false that Christ was a high priest according to the order of Aaron, notwithstanding the great allusion between what he did and what was done by Aaron in that office, and the great representation made of him and his actings thereby, then is it not true that Christ was called a priest “after the order of Melchisedec,” by reason of some allusion unto the office of
the priesthood.
[6.] This conception would utterly enervate the sense of the ge- neral argument that the apostle manageth towards these Hebrews, as well as that especial one about the cessation of the law. For heis pressing them to stability and constancy in the profession of the gospel, that they fall not back unto their old Judaism which they had deserted. To enforce his exhortation to this purpose, the prin- cipal argument he insists on is taken from the excellency and glory of the priesthood under the new testament,—incomparably ex- alted above that of the old, which yet was the most glorious and useful part of their worship. But that which is metaphorical in any kind is evidently less than that which is properly so. Itis replied by Crellius, “ That what is only metaphorically so may yet be more ex- cellent than that which is properly ;” whereof he gives some instances. And it is true it may be so. But it cannot be so in that instance wherein the metaphor consists. Suppose the Lord Christ to be only — metaphorically a priest, yet he may, on many other accounts, be far more excellent and glorious than Aaron. But yet the priesthood of Aaron being properly so, and his only metaphorically so, the priest- hood of Aaron was more excellent than his; which is directly con- trary to the scope of the apostle. Suppose the Lord Christ were
“SECT. 3.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 145
only metaphorically a prophet or aking, he may yet on many other considerations be more excellent than either Moses or David, yet they must, on this supposition, be granted to have had the offices of prophet and king more eminently than he. So also must it be with his priesthood, on this supposition, with respect unto that of Aaron.