SECT. 7.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. WE
his kingly power, or any act of it, is included in his intercession, which is so distinctly expressed. Wherefore, (4.) that the apostle should here mention the kingly power of Christ, and name his. in- tercession as the act thereof, seeing he nameth no other, is a fond imagination; for both doth intercession in its proper nature be- long to another office, and also it is peculiarly ascribed unto the Lord Christ by our apostle as a high priest, and not-as a king, Heb. vii. 25-27. The intercession of Christ as a priest is ordained of God as a means of making his sacrifice and oblation effectual, by the application of its virtue and efficacy unto us; and the actual communication of the truth of it is committed unto him as our Lord, Head, and King. For whereas all his. offices are vested in the same person, belong all unto the same general work of me- diation, and haye all the same general end, it is impossible but that the acts of them must have mutual respect and relation one to an- other; but yet the offices themselves are formally distinct.
7. He yet proceeds on the same argument unto another instance: —“ Johannes dum Christum advocatum quem apud Patrem habe- amus, nominat, et eum simul expiationem pro peccatis nostris vocat, (1.) conseri potest munus sacerdotale nobis descripsisse: ubi (2.) tamen regium munus non opponit. At cum ad (3.) consolatio- nem illam, quam eo loco peccantibus proponit Johannes, plurimum pertineat scire Christum plenissimam habere.pcenas peccatorum a nobis auferendi potestatem (4.) tacite id in suis verbis inclusisse cen- sendus est, 1 Joh. ii. 2.”
Ans. Seeing he designed not to consider all the testimonies that are usually pleaded for the priestly office of Christ in the New Tes- tament, I cannot but admire how he came to fix on this instance, which he can give no better countenance to his evasion from; for,— (1.) The apostle may not only be thought to describe the priestly office of Christ, but he doth it so expressly as that the contrary can- not be insinuated with any respect to modesty. For the whole of the priestly office consists in oblation and intercession, both which are here distinctly ascribed unto him; and to describe an office by proper power and its duties is more significant than to do it only by its name. (2.) It is acknowledged that here is no mention made of, Christ’s kingly power; and it must also be acknowledged that the things here ascribed unto Christ do no way belong unto his kingly office. Hence it follows undeniably that the writers of the New Testament distinguish these offices, and do not include one of them in the other. Yea, but saith Crellius, (3.) “The apostle is to be thought tacitly to include the kingly power of Christ;” that is, al- though he mentions it not, yet he ought to have done so, and there- fore is to be thought to have intended what he did not express,
VOL. XIX. 12
178 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
That case is very desperate, indeed, which is only capable of such a defence as this. But there is good reason to think why the apostle ought so to do,—that is, to do what indeed he did not,—Crellius being judge. For saith he, (4) “The full power that Christ hath to deliver us from the punishment due to sin belongs unto that consola- tion which the apostle intended to give unto sinners.” Ans. (1.) I deny that the consideration of the power intended did at all belong unto the consolation that the apostle designs for sinners, and that because neither directly nor indirectly is it mentioned by him. And he knew what belonged unto the consolation which he intended better than Crellius did. This, therefore, is but a direction given the apostle (though coming too late) what he ought to have written, ~ and not an interpretation of what he wrote. (2.) Proposing the expiatory oblation and intercession of Christ as the ground of our consolation, because they axe the reasons, causes, and means of the forgiveness of our sins, the apostle had no occasion to mention the certain consequents thereof, such as is our deliverance from the punishment due to sin. (38.) The power of Christ to take away sins, or to deliver us from the punishment due to sin, fancied by Crellius, is indeed no principle of evangelical consolation, nor doth belong to the kingly office of Christ, nor is consistent with the apostle’s pre- sent discourse, which lays our consolation on the real propitiation and intercession of Christ, both which are excluded by this imaginary power of taking away the penalty due to sin absolutely, without respect to price, atonement, or satisfaction.
And these are all the places which he thought meet to consider in pursuance of his assertion, “ That all the writers of the New Tes- tament, excepting the author of this Epistle, did in a sort include the kingly and priestly offices of Christ the one in the other;” wherein how he hath acquitted himself is left unto the judgment of the indifferent reader. It was not, I confess, improvidently done of him, to confine himself unto the New Testament, considering that in the Old He is expressly called a priest, Ps. cx. 4, and that in conjunction with, and yet distinction from, his regal power, Zech. vi. 12, 13; he is also said to have his soul made a sin-offering, and that when, in and under his suffering, he bare our iniquities, Isa. iii. 10, 11; whereby, when ‘he was cut off, he made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan. ix. 24, 25. Sundry testimonies also of the New Testament, before quoted, are utterly omitted by him, as those which will not by any means be compelled unto the least appearance of a compliance with his de- sign. But these artifices are wanted to the cause. Only I must add, that I cannot but admire with what confidence our adversaries tall of the priesthood of Christ, of his offering himself an expiatory