The argument from Heb. i. 1-8, whereby he attempts to prove that one of these offices is contained in the other “ quodammodo,” whatever that be, (5.) is infirm and weak; yea, he himself knew well enough the weakness of it. It consists in this only, that the apostle in that place makes mention of the prophetical and priestly offices of Christ, and not of the kingly; for which Crellius himself gives this reason in his commentary on the place, namely, because, as he supposeth, he had treated fully of the kingly office in the first chapter. In the third, the place here produced by him, as him- self observes, he is entering on his comparing Christ with Moses, who was the prophet, apostle, ambassador, or legate of God to the people, and Aaron who was their priest; and with respect hereunto he calls the Hebrews unto a due consideration of him, especially considering that they had a deep and fixed apprehension concerning the kingly power of the Messiah, but of his being the great prophet and high priest of the church they had heard little in their Judaism.
SECT. 5.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 173
It doth not therefore follow hence that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are comprehended one in another “ quodammodo,” but only that the apostle, having distinctly handled the kingly office of Christ before, as he had done both in the first and second chap- ters, now proceeding to the consideration of his priestly and pro- phetical offices, makes no mention thereof, nor indeed would it have been to his purpose so to have done; yea, it was expressly contrary to his design. For what is nextly proposed, concerning the nature of these offices, it is agreed that the Lord Christ is called our “apostle” as he was the prophet of the church, sent of God to reveal and de- clare his mind and love unto us. But it is not so that he is called (6.) a “high priest,’—that is, principally, firstly, and properly,— because of the care he takes of our religion, and his administration of the affairs of it. Yea, there is nothing more opposite than their notion of the priesthood of Christ, not only to the general nature of that office, with the common sense of mankind concerning it, but also to the whole discourse of the apostle on this subject; for he not only asserts, but proves by sundry arguments, that the Lord Christ was made a priest to offer sacrifice unto God, to make reconciliation for sin and intercession for sinners. It is his being constituted a high priest for ever, and having offered the one sacrifice of himself, whereby all that come unto God are sanctified,—he doth as such a high priest preside over the spiritual worship of the house of God; so that in and by him alone we have access unto the throne of grace, and do enter into the holy place through the blood of his sacrifice, wherein he consecrated for us a new and living way of access to God, Wherefore our author utterly fails in his first attempt for a proof of what he had asserted.
5. His next endeavour towards the same purpose is from the silence of the other writers of the New Testament concerning this office of Christ. This he supposeth would not have been, consider- ing the excellency and usefulness of it, had it not been included in
his kingly office, for so he expresseth himself, p. 544:— Ceeteri
scriptores N. Testamenti (1.) regium potius et propheticum mu- nus commemorant, nec ullus ex iis Christum (2.) diserte sacerdo- tem aut pontificem vocat; facturiid proculdubio creberrime, si id in exteris ipsius muneribus atque imprimis in regio, consideratis certis eorum munerum circumstantiis in quibus sacerdoti legali similis est Christus, intelligi ac facile comprehendi non posset, cum ex eo mu- nere, (3.) salus nostra zterna pendeat, Heb. v. 9, 10, vii. 24, 25. Quandoquidem inde peccatorum nostrorum proficiscitur remissio et justificatio in qua beatitas nostra consistit.”
Ans. The intelligent reader may easily observe what is the judg- ~ ment of this man concerning the priesthood of Christ, which is this,
174 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [ EXERC. XXXII.
that in the exercise of his other offices he is so called, because of some svmilitude unto the legal priests of old; which is plainly to deny and overthrow the office itself, and to leave no such thing in him, substituting a bare metaphorical, allusive denomination in the room of it. And it is but a noise of words which is added concern- ing the dependence of our salvation on the sacerdotal duty of Christ, because indeed it is denied that he is a priest at all; and all that is intended thereby is but the exercise of his other offices in some kind of likeness unto the high priest under the law. To affirm on this supposition that forgiveness of sin, justification, salvation, blessedness, depend on this office,—that is, on a name given from this allusion,— is only to serve a present occasion, without respect to truth or sobriety. But in particular, I say (1.) there is more express mention [by the writers of the New Testament] of the distinct office of the priesthood of Christ, both as to its nature and its acts, than of his prophetical. Why (2.) they do not directly and expressly call him a priest, they are not bound to give an account unto these men. It is enough for the faith of the church that they do really and expressly ascribe unto him the acts and duties of that office, such as could be performed by none but a priest properly so called, and particularly such as in no sense belong either to the prophetical or kingly office,—namely, to offer himself a sacrifice, to be a propitiation, to wash us im his blood, to make intercession for us, yea, to be made sin for us, and the like. But this Epistle also belongeth unto the New Testament, nor is it as yet denied by the Socinians so to do; and herein this office of Christ is so plainly, fully, distinctly treated of and proposed, in its causes, nature, use, and effects, with its necessity and the benefits we receive thereby, as that no other office of his is in any part of the Scripture, nor in the whole of it, so graphically described.