SECT. 8.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 179
sacrifice, of his intercession, when all these things, in the proper and only signification of the words, are expressly denied by them. 8. Our author proceeds, in the next place, to give a reason of that which neither is nor ever was, namely, why the holy writers do in some manner comprehend these offices one in the other; for they propose them unto us distinctly, as their nature doth require :— “Neque vero immerito sacri scriptores alterum officium in altero (1.) quodammodo comprehendunt. Nam quicquid a Christo ut sa- cerdote (2, 3.) expectamus, id ab eo ut rege reipsa proficisci dici potest. Sacerdotis est (4.) peccata expiare et expurgare. Hoc fit dum (5.) hostes Christi et nostri, peccatum nempe ipsum, mors et qui mortis habet imperium Satanas, destruuntur. At Christus hostes suos ac nostros debellat ac destruit ut rex, 1 Cor. xv. 2426, Phil. iii ult. (6.) Sacerdotis est auxilium iis qui ad thronum gratis acce- dunt opportunum preestare, et afflictis prompte succurrere, Heb. ii. 17, 18, iv. 15,16. (7.) Annon etiam Christi regis est populo suo ad thronum ipsius confugienti succurrere, et aftlictis opem ferre?” Ans. (1.) We observed before the looseness and ambiguity of that expression, “ quodammodo,” or “after a sort;” for if it signify any thing in this case, it is the application of the distinct energies and operations of these distinct offices unto the same end, wherein we own their agreement and concurrence. That which he should prove is, that they are one of them so contained in the other as that they are not two distinct offices. (2.) If whatever we expect from Christ as a priest do really proceed from him as a king, as here it is af- firmed, then is his priesthood odd:y dAX0 rAqy Gvowa,—“ a mere empty name,” whereby nothing of any use or value is signified. (3.) His arguments whereby he endeavours to prove that the holy writers did, not without cause, do that which indeed they did not at all, are sophistical, and in conclusion not proving what himself intends. For, what “we do expect from a priest” is sophistical; for it re- spects our present expectation of what is future,—our hope, faith, and desire of what he will do for us. But this is but one part of the office and duty of a priest, yea, that part which is expressly founded in what is done already; for Christ, our high priest, hath already expiated and purged our sins, and we have no expectation that he should do it again. He did “ by himself,’—that is, by the sacrifice of himself,—“ purge our sins,” and that before he sat down at the right hand of God, Heb. i. 3; and this he did once only, by his own sacrifice once offered, as we have proved. Wherefore (4.) it is true that it belongeth unto a priest to expiate our sins and take them away. This we believe that Christ hath done for us, as our high priest ; but we do not expect that he should do it any more, any otherwise but by the application unto us of the virtue and efficacy
180 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
of what he hath already done. (5.) The description here given us of the expiation of sin,—namely, that it “consists in the actual subduing of Christ’s enemies and ours, sin, death, and the devil,”— is absurd, dissonant from the common sense of mankind in these things, destructive to the whole nature of the types of the old tes- tament, and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture. This is a blessed consequent and fruit, indeed, of the expiation of our sins, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, when his soul was made an offering for sin, when he offered himself a sacri- fice, a propitiation, price, and ransom, to make atonement and re- conciliation for sin; but expiation itself consisteth not therein. These, therefore, we acknowledge that Christ effecteth by various actings of his kingly power; but all on a supposition of the atone- ment made by him as a priest with respect unto the guilt and de- merit of sin. Hereby he obtained for us eternal redemption, and we have redemption in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. The things intended are therefore so distinct that they prove the offices or powers from whence they proceed to be so also: for neither did Christ as a king expiate and purge our sins, which could be done only by a bloody sacrifice; nor doth he as a priest subdue his ene- mies and ours, which is the work, and whereunto the power of a king is required.
Nor hath he any better success in the next instance, as to en- couragements of coming unto the throne of grace. For (6, 7.) “ the throne of grace” mentioned in Heb. iv. 16, is not the throne of Christ as a king, “ his own throne,” as it is here rendered by Crellius, but the throne of God, where Christ as a high priest maketh interces- sion for us. So that when he says that it is the office of a priest to “succour them who come to the throne of grace,” and the part of Christ to relieve them who come for help unto his throne, it is evi- dent that he sophistically confounds the things that are to be dis- tinguished. We go to the throne of God through the interposition of Christ as our high priest, our propitiation, and advocate; and we go to the throne of Christ as king of the church, on the account of the glorious power committed unto him for our help and relief. Wherefore (2.) the encouragements we have to approach unto the throne of grace, whereunto is our ultimate address, for help and relief, from the priestly office and actings of Christ, are different and distinct from them which we have from his kingly office, as the actings of Christ with respect unto the one and the other of these offices are different and distinct. We go “with boldness unto the throne of grace,” on the account of Christ’s being our high priest; as he who, by the oblation of himself, hath procured admittance for us, and consecrated a new and living way for our access thereunto; as