[7.] Add unto all these particular instances unto the contrary, that this Socinian fiction of the Lord Christ being not a priest, but only called so, by reason of some similitude between what he doth for the church and what was done by the priests of the law,—which indeed, as by them explained, is none at all,—is directly opposite to the whole design and discourse of the apostle in this Epistle. For, treating of the priesthood of Christ, he constantly calls him a priest in the sense which they had of that expression to whom he wrote, or he spake not to their understandings; he assigns all sorts of sacer- dotal actions unto him, in all instances of duties belonging unto a priest as such, and that in competition with, and by way of preference above, the priests of the order of Aaron; nor doth he in any place, either directly or indirectly, give the least intimation that all these expressions of his were only tropical or metaphorical, not indeed sig- nifying those things which those to whom he wrote understood by them. This had not been to instruct the Hebrews, but to deceive them, nor will be granted by those who have a greater reverence for the sacred writings than to wrest them at their pleasure into a com- pliance with their own preconceived opinions.
And this is the first thing which we are to consider in the inves- tigation and vindication of the true nature of the priesthood of Christ. It was such as that on the account thereof he was a priest properly so called; which as it gives a rule unto the interpretation of the nature of the sacrifice which as a priest he offered, so is the truth of it confirmed by all other things which are ascribed unto him under that qualification, as we shall see afterwards. And what remains for the further confirmation hereof will be added in our en- suing consideration of the attempt of our adversaries to establish the contrary assertion.
3. “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle,” his actings in that office do in the first place respect God himself,—ra apig rbv @év. He did the things that were to be performed with God on the behalf of the people. And this further manifests the nature of his office. He came as a priest ig rd iAdoxeobas rag dwupring rod Anod, Heb. ii. 17; that is, Adoxecbas rov Octy rep) rv &wapriay, as hath been observed by many, “to make reconciliation with God for the sins of the people.” For sins cannot be the immediate object of reconciliation, but he alone is so who was displeased with them, and by whom, on that re-
VOL. XIX. 10
146 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXI.
conciliation, they are pardoned and the sinner acquitted. But yet neither can we carry this without control. This also is denied by our adversaries in this cause, although therein they offer violence not only unto all that we are taught in the Scripture about these things, but also unto all the common sentiments of mankind, putting such senses on these expressions as are absolutely contrary unto them and inconsistent with them. What are those senses we shall afterwards examine. For the present, it sufficeth to our purpose to take notice of their denial that the sacerdotal actings of Christ,— that is, his oblation and intercession,—do respect God in the first place; the contrary whereunto we shall now teach and confirm.
The Scripture instructs us, as we have proved, that the Lord Christ was and is our high priest; and, moreover, that as such he offered himself unto God once for all, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, as a propitiatory, expiatory sacrifice, Isa. liu. 10; Heb. i. 3, ii. 17, v. 5, vii. 27, x. 10; Eph. v. 2; 1 John i, 2. What the Holy Ghost intends hereby, and what is the meaning of these expressions, he had before instructed the church in, by those institu- tions under the old testament whereby he foresignified and repre- sented what was intended in them and by them. To suppose these expressions to have one signification under the old testament, and another quite of a different nature under the new, whereas the things signified by the one were appointed only to teach and instruct us in the nature of the other, is to take away all certainty from what we are taught in the Scripture. We may therefore positively conclude, that if the actings of the priests under the old testament did respect God in the first place, then those of Christ did so also, or there is no similitude or analogy between these things; which to affirm is to overthrow both the old testament and the new. This, therefore, we must in the first place confirm.
The principal duty and work of the priests under the law was to . offer sacrifices. As the whole law speaks thus, so our apostle ex- pressly confirms it, making that work the great end of the priest- hood. Sacrifices had respect unto sin. Priests were appointed to offer Svoiag rep &mapridy, “ sacrifices for sin.” And when God called them to the work, he said it was Orhamad , that they should exercise the priesthood towards him, Exod. xxviii. 1. Had there been no sin, there had been no sacrifices properly so called, as we have proved before. There might have been a dedication of any thing in our power unto God, as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and bounty. But sacrifices by blood had all respect unto sin, as the nature of them doth declare. Wherefore, God appointing priests to offer sacrifices for sin, and therein to minister unto him, he must be the first object of their actings as such.