(7.) Those words whereby he enlargeth herein, “ That then, when Christ was raised from the dead, God gave unto his people a king according unto his promises, and appointed Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, or, which is the same, the Son of God in power,” for which Acts ii, 36, Rom. i. 4, are urged, are partly ambiguous and sophis- tical, and partly false. For,—[1.] The things mentioned in those places are not the same. In the one it is said that God made him “both Lord and Christ ;” in the other, that he was “declared to be the Son of God with power.” And he doth wofully prevaricate when
SECT. 10. ] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 183
he so repeats the words, as if it were said that he was made or ap- pointed to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection, when he was only publicly determined or declared so to be. [2.] He in- sinuates that Jesus was not made Lord and Christ, or the Son of God, until after his resurrection. But this is openly false: for,— Is¢. He was born both Lord and Christ, Luke ii. 11; 2dly. When he came into the world the angels worshipped him as Lord and Christ, Heb. i. 6; 3dly. Peter confessed him before to be ‘ Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matt. xvi. 16; 4thly. He often affirmed before that all things were given into his hands, Matt. xi. 27; 5thly. If it were so, the Jews only crucified Jesus, and not Christ the Lord, or only him that was so to be afterwards; which is false and blas- phemous. It is true, upon his ascension, not immediately on his resurrection, he was gloriously exalted unto the illustrious exercise of his kingly power; but he was our Lord and King before his death. And therein also,—
(8.) From what hath been spoken, it is easy to know what is to be returned unto the conclusion that he makes of this argument; for the words produced in testimony are not spoken immediately concerning any office of Christ whatever, as expressive of it, much less concerning his regal dignity in a peculiar manner. And God was no less the father of Christ, he was no less begotten of him, when he was humbled to death in the sacrifice of himself that he offered as a priest, than when he was exalted in glory at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
10. From this attempt to prove that the sacerdotal office of Christ is comprehended in the regal by the divine writers, Crellius proceeds to show what “ differences there are indeed between them;” and hereof he giveth sundry instances. But he might have spared that labour. This one would have sufficed, namely, that the Lord Christ isa “king really and properly,”—he is a “priest only metaphorically ;” that is, he is not so indeed, but is called so improperly, because of some allusion between what he did and what was done by the priests of old, as believers are called kings and priests. A man would think this were difference enough, as amounting to no less but that Christ is a king indeed, but not a priest. There was therefore no need that he should take the pains to find out, indeed to coin, differences between two such offices, whereof one is, and the other is not. And all the differences he fixeth on, the first only excepted, whereunto some pretence may be given, are merely feigned, or drained out of some other false hypotheses of the same author. However, it may not be amiss, seeing we have designed the vindication of this’ office of Christ from the whole opposition that is made unto it by this sort of men, to examine a little those differences he assigns between the real and
184 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
supposed office of Christ, which he makes use.of to no other end but to annihilate the latter of them:—
11. “ Distinctio autem inter regium et sacerdotale munus primum in eo cernitur quod regium munus latius se porrigit quam sacerdo- ’ tium; unde illius etiam crebrior fit mentio. Regis enim est etiam punire; sacerdotis vero tantum peccata populi expiare.”
Ans. This may be granted as one difference in the exercise of the power of these offices; for the kingly power of Christ is extended unto his enemies, the stubbornest of them and those who are finally so, but Christ is a priest offered and intended only for the elect. But he might also have instanced in sundry other acts the kingly power of Christ, as, namely, his law-giving, his wniversal protection of his people, his rule and government of the church by his Spirit and word, which belong not at all unto his priestly office. But this was not to his purpose, nor doth he design to evince any real difference between these two offices. For it is true that he opposeth punishing and expiating sin the one to the other, assigning the former unto the kingly, the latter unto the sacerdotal office; but if to expiate sin be only to remove and take away the punishment of sin, or that which is contrary to punishing, then Crellius maintains that Christ doth this by virtue.of his kingly power and office. The sum, there- fore, of this difference amounts to no more but this, that the Lord Christ as a king, and by virtue of his regal power, doth both punish sin and take away the punishment of it; only he doth the latter as a priest,—that is, there is an allusion in what he doth unto what was done for the people by the priests of old.