The reason also why the full revelation of the nature of this office of Christ was, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, reserved for this Epistle to the Hebrews is so evident that our author need not think so strange of it. It was among them that God of old had in- stituted the solemn representation of it, in their typical priesthood. The nature of all those institutions they were now to be peculiarly instructed in, both that they might see the faithfulness of God in accomplishing what he designed by them, and the end that he put thereby unto their administration. Now, though these things were of use unto the whole church of God, that all might learn his truth, wisdom, and faithfulness, in the harmony of the Old Testament and the New, yet were the Hebrews peculiarly concerned herein, and therefore the Holy Ghost reserved the full communication of those things unto his treating with them in an especial manner. But (3.) all those acts of the sacerdotal, office of Christ whereon the pardon
SECT. 6.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 175
of sin, justification, and salvation, do depend, are expressly men- tioned by other writers of the New Testament; as 1 John ii. 2; Eph. v. 2; 2 Cor. v.21; Rom. viii. 3, 4,34; 1 Johni.7; Rev. i.5; 1 Pet. i. 19, with sundry other places.
Let it now be judged whether any thing of the least moment hath as yet been offered in proof of the assertion laid down,—namely, that the priestly office of Christ is contained in the kingly “quodammodo.”
6. But he yet further enlargeth on this consideration :—“ Quando autem czteri scriptores sacri id commemorant quod ad sacerdotium Christi magis proprie pertinet, (1.) munus hoc ipsum muneri regio, aut functionem functioni revera non opponunt. Interpellationem Christi pro nobis, (2.) semel nominavit Paulus, Rom. viii. 34, sed in ea (3.) tacite actum etiam regize ipsius potestatis ad nos a peena libe- randos pertinentem, tanquam interpellationis effectum quendam pro- prium complexus est ; évépye:a enim seu operatio a regia Christi potes- tate manans, atque ad nos a peena liberandos pertinens curee illius pro nobis suscepte quidam veluti effectus est et consequens. (4.) Regiam quidem potestatem apostolus ibi commemoravit in verbis, “qui etiam est in dextra Dei, et interpellationem ab ea distinxit; sed potestatis illius actum expresse non commemoravit, contentus inter- pellationem nominasse.”
Ans. (1.) This condition is imposed on us without warrant, that we should produce testimonies out of the other writers of the New Testament where the priestly office of Christ is opposed unto his kingly ; nor do we pretend that any such thing is done in this Epistle. Nor are the offices of Christ anywhere opposed one unto another, nor ought they so to be; nor can any man show wherein there is an opposition made between his kingly and prophetical offices, which these men acknowledge to be distinct. And it sufficeth unto our purpose that the kingly and priestly offices are, in their names, powers, acts, and duties, distinctly proposed and declared. And this author ought to have considered all the testimonies before men- tioned, and not to have taken out only one or two of them, which he thought he could best wrest unto his purpose; which is all that he hath attempted, and yet hath failed of his end. It is here said (2.) that Paul in his other epistles doth but once expressly mention the intercession of Christ in heaven. But he mentioneth his oblation on earth more frequently, as may be seen in the places quoted. And the mentioning of it in one place in words plain, and capable of no other sense, is as effectual as if it had been expressed in a hundred other places. (3.) It is both false and frivolous, to say that in speak- ing of Christ’s intercession he doth tacitly include any act of his kingly power whereby he frees us from punishment. First, It is false, because as intercession is certainly no act of kingly power, nor formally hath
176 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
any respect thereunto,—it denoting the impetration of something from another, whereas all the acts of kingly authority are the exerting of that power which one hath in himself,—so there is nothing in the text or context to give countenance unto any such imagination. For what relates unto the kingly power of Christ, namely, his sitting at the right hand of God, is expressed as a distinct act or adjunct of his mediatorial office, even as his dying and rising again are. And that his intercession is completely distinguished and separated from it is plain from the expression whereby it is introduced: “Og xa/ geri év bckih rod Osod, O¢ nal evruyrcdver dorep Hucyv-—“ Who also is on the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.’ If therefore his being at the right hand of God is distinguished from his dying and rising again, so as not to be included in them nor they in it, then are his intercession and sitting at the right hand of God so distin- guished also. And the truth is, the apostle, for our consolation, here proposeth distinctly all the offices of Christ in their most effectual acts, or the most eminent notations of them, and that in the proper order of their discharge and exercise. And whereas the acts of his sacerdotal office are so distinct as that between them the interposi- tion of the actings of his other offices was necessary, he begins and ends with them, as the order of their exercise did require; for,— [1.] He died for us as a priest; then [2.] He rose, giving testimony to the truth as the prophet of the church; [8.] He possessed actually his kingly power, sitting at the right hand of God; and [4.] There carrieth on the perpetual exercise of his priesthood by intercession. Wherefore there is nothing in these words that should tacitly inti- mate an inclusion of any act of the kingly office, but it is expressed in a clear distinction from it, as an act quite of another nature. And it will, if I mistake not, be a very difficult task for these persons to manifest, in any tolerable, rational manner, how the intercession of Christ doth include in it an act of his kingly power. Secondly, It is frivolous, if by this “tacitly comprehended” he intend that the inter- cession of Christ, which is an act of his priestly office, hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some act or acts of his kingly office; for such a mutual respect there is between the acts of all the offices of Christ and their effects. The oblation of Christ, which is an act of the priestly office, is made effectual towards us by the interposition of the exercise of his prophetical office, 2 Cor. v. 18-21, Eph. ii. 14-17; and his teaching us as the prophet of the church is made effectual by those supplies of his Spirit and grace which are effects of his kingly power. Suppose, therefore, that the energy and operation of Christ’s kingly power is put forth to make his intercession effectual towards us in the way mentioned by Crel- lius,—which yet in his sense is false,—this proves not in the least that