In this controversy he expressly engageth, in Respon. ad Grotium, cap. x. part. 56, p. 543: “(1.) Pontificiam Christi dignitatem a pro- phetica et regia distinctam agnoscimus, quanquam non pari modo distinctam. (2.) Arctius enim cum regia dignitate cohzret quam cum prophetica. (8.) Unde duo ista munera, regium nempe et pontificium, in sacris literis aperte a se invicem disjuncta, et ut in scholis loquuntur contradistincta, nuspiam cernas sed potius alterum in altero (4.) quodammodo comprehensum videas. Nam (5.) D. Auctor Heb. iii. initio Christi dignitatem quam ratione muneris sibi a Deo mandati habeat, nobis ante oculos ponere volens, et ad ejus considerationem nos cohortans, duo tantum illius officia commemorat propheticum et sacerdotale, quorum illud in terris olim absolvit, hoc
SECT. 4.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 171
in ccelis perpetuo administrat, dum inquit, ‘ Unde, fratres sancti, vocationis coelestis :participes, considerate apostolum’ (seu ‘legatum’) ‘et pontificem confessionis nostree, Christum Jesum.’ Apostolum sive legatum confessionis, hoc est, religionis ac fidei nostree quam profiteri debemus, vocat Christum, quia ad eam nobis annunciandam olim a Deo missus fuit quod est prophetz. Pontificem autem ejus- dem confessionis seu religionis appellat. (6.) Quia ad eam perpetuo tuendam et curam ejus gerendam, hoc est, ad omnia ea que ad illam spectant administranda et ad exitum in nobis perducenda a Deo constitutus est; quasi summum religionis nostra ac sacrorum presidem aut administratorem dicas, quod. infra, cap. xii. 2. _Ilis verbis expressit dum eum ‘ducem et consummatorem fidei’ appellat; quia non tantum voce et exemplo nobis ad eam preivit, verum etiam eandem ad Dei dextram nunc collocatus perficit, atque ad optatum finem perducit.”
That the Lord Christ is called a priest on some account or other, and is so, these men cannot deny, and therefore on all occasions they do in words expressly confess it. But their endeavour is, to persuade us that little or nothing is signified by that appellation as ascribed unto him. At least, they will by no means allow that any such thing is intended in that expression as it signifies in all other au- thors, sacred and profane, when not applied unto the Lord Christ. They will not have a distinct office to be intended in it. Wherefore Crellius, although he acknowledges, in the entrance of this discourse, (1.) that the priestly dignity of Christ is distinct from his kingly and prophetical dignities, yet his whole ensuing endeavour is to prove that the priesthood is not a distinct office in him. And he sophistically makes use of the word “dignity,” the “priestly dignity,” to make an appearance of a distinct office from the kingly, which here he expresseth by “dignity” also. But he nowhere allows that he hatha distinct sacerdotal office. And when he mentions“ officium pontificale” as distinct from the “ officium propheticum,” he expressly intendeth his kingly office. And they do constantly in their other writings call the one “ officium regium,” the other “munus sacerdotale,” supposing the first word to denote an habitual power, and the latter only actual exercise, wherein yet they are mistaken. The priestly dignity, there- fore, here intended, and by which word he would impose on the less wary reader, is nothing but the honour that is due unto Christ for and in the discharge of his kingly office and power in a merciful, gracious manner, as the priests did of old. Wherefore he adds, (2.) that not- withstanding thisdistinction, yet the sacerdotal dignity comes nearer or closer to the kingly dignity than the prophetical. But this assertion is not built on any general principle taken from the nature of these offices themselves, as though there were a greater agreement between the
172 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
kingly and priestly offices than between the priestly and prophetical ; for the prophetical and sacerdotal offices seem on many accounts to be of a nearer alliance than the sacerdotal and kingly, as we shall see afterwards. But this is only a step towards the main design of a total subverting of the sacerdotal office of Christ. For on this - assertion it is added immediately, (3.) that in the Scripture these two offices, the kingly and priestly, are never disjoined openly, or as contradistinct one to another. But yet his words are ambiguous, If he intend that they are not plainly, and so openly, distinguished in the Scripture one from the other, there is nothing more openly false. They are so in names and things, in the powers, acts, duties, and effects. If by “A se invicem disjuncta et contradistincta,” he intend such a divulsion and separation as that they should agree in nothing, not in their subject, not in their original, nor in their general ends and effects, so no offices of Him are divided who in them all is the Mediator between God and men. But they are nowhere so conjoined as that one of them should be contained and comprehended in the other (4.) “ quodammodo,” “after a sort,” as he speaks; for this word also is of a large and ambiguous signification, used on purpose to obscure the matter treated of or the sense of the author about it. Is one so comprehended in the other as to be the same with it, to be a part of it, or to be only the exercise of the power of the other in an especial manner? If this be the mind of this author, it can be expressed by “quodammodo” for no other end but because he dares not openly avow his sense and mind. But we deny that one is thus contained in the other, or any way so as to hinder it from being a distinct office of itself, accompanied with its distinct powers, rights, acts, and duties.