SECT. 9.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 181
he who, by his intercession, procures us favourable audience and speeds our requests with God. See our Exposition on the place. Our expectation of relief and aid from the Lord Christ as the king of grace and glory on his throne, ariseth from that all-power in heaven and earth which is given unto him forthat end. In brief, as a priest he interposeth with God for us; as a king he acts from God towards us.
9. His last attempt to the same purpose is in the ensuing dis- course:—“ Idem ex eo quoque apparet quod auctor divinus Epist. ad Heb. (1.) locum illum psalmi, ‘Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te’ (4.) ad (5.) sacerdotium Christi aperte refert, cap. v. 5, 6, et pon- tificiam ei dignitatem hac ratione a Deo concessam docet. At ea (6.) de regno aperte loquuntur. Nam (2, 3.) David qui Christi typus fuit explicat in iis verbis decretum Dei, quo rex, post diuturnum exilium reipsa “fuit constitutus, et in solio regio collocatus, quemad- modum psalmus inspectus quemvis docebit unde ea Paulus Christo e mortuis resuscitato demum ait impleta, Act. xili. 32, 33. (7.) Nam tum demum Deus secundum promissa sua regem dedit populo suo et Jesum constituit Dominum et Christum; seu quod idem est, Filium Dei in potentia, Act. ii. 36, Rom. i. 4. Et idem hic D. scriptor ad Hebreos, cap.i.5. (8.) Ex istis verbis demonstrat preestantiam Christi supra angelos quam, ad dextram Majestatis in excelsis collocatus, est adeptus. Quod si sacerdotium Christi a regia dignitate prorsus est distinctum, et Christus reipsa sacerdos fuit cum in cruce pateretur, imo tune proprie sacerdotii munere functus est, in coelo improprie, quomodo hee verba que de regia supremaque dignitate Christi lo- quuntur, ad sacerdotium Christi accommodantur, quod tum revera fuerit peractum, cum Christus se maxime humiliavit, et minor appa-
«Tuit angelis, Phil. ii. 8, Heb. ii. 8?”
Ans. If it were determinately certain what he intends to prove, we might the better judge of the validity of his proofs and argu- ments. But his limitation of “quodammodo,” “videtur,” and “aliqua ex parte,” leave it altogether uncertain what it is that he designeth to evince. It is enough to our cause and purpose if we manifest that nothing by him produced or insisted on doth prove the kingly and priestly offices of Christ to be the same, or that one of them is so comprehended in the other as that they are not distinct in their powers, energies, and duties. And this is not done; for,—(1.) The words of the testimony out of the second psalm, which is so variously applied by the apostles, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” do not formally express any one office of Christ, nor are used to that purpose. They only declare the relation and love of the ' Father unto his person; which were the foundation and reason of committing all that authority unto him which he exercises in all his offices; whereunto, therefore, they are applied. And therefore on
182 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC, XXXII.
several occasions doth God express the same thing in words very little varied, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5; 2 Pet. 1.17; for the declaration of Christ to be the eternal Son of God is all that is intended in these words. (2.) That these words were firstly used of David and his exaltation to the throne of Israel after his banishment, is easily said, but not so easily proved. Let our reader consult our Exposition on Heb. i. 5. (3.) The call of Christ unto his offices of king, priest, and prophet, as it respects the authority and love of the Father, was but one and the same. He had not a distinct call unto each office, but was at once called unto them all, as he was the Son of God sent and anointed to be the Mediator between God and men. ‘The offices themselves, the gifts and graces to be exercised in them, their powers, acts, and duties, were distinct, but his call unto them all was the same. (4.) The writer of this Epistle doth not accommodate these words to the priestly office of Christ, any otherwise but to evince that he was called of God unto that office on the ground of his re- lation to God and his love of him; for he produceth those words to declare who it was that called him, and why he did so, the call itself being expressed, as respecting the priesthood, in the other testimony, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” Where- fore there is not in these words any expression of the priesthood of Christ. See the exposition of the place. (5.) These words are most eminently applied unto the resurrection of Christ, Acts xii. 32, 33. Now, this principally belonged unto his prophetical office, as that whereby the truth of the doctrine he had taught was invincibly con- firmed. And you may by this means as well overthrow the distinc- tion between his kingly and prophetical offices as between his kingly and sacerdotal. But the reason why it is accommodated unto the
Lord Christ with respect unto either of his offices, is because his re- —
lation unto God, therein expressed, was the ground of them all. (6.) What if Crellius cannot prove that these words of the psalmist have any respect unto the kingly office of Christ ?. I deny at present that he can do so, and refer the reader for his satisfaction herein unto the exposition of them as quoted by the apostle, Heb. i. 5.