He closeth his discourse in these words:—“ Quare hee quoque fuit causa hujus (1.) appellationis Christo tribuende; ut (2.) omit- tam multas similitudines qua Christo cum sacerdote legali et Mel- chisedeco, qui itidem fuit sacerdos Dei altissimi intercedunt; que huic appellationi causam dederunt; quibus etiam addenda est simi- litudo multiplex cum victimis legalibus.”
Ans. Here (1.) the whole design is plainly expressed. There is the name of a priest, for some certain reasons, attributed unto Christ, whereas truly and really he never had any such office from whence he might be so denominated. And this is that which, in this whole discourse, I principally designed to evince. (2.) To say that Christ was “ called a priest from that likeness which was in sundry things” (not in the office of the priesthood and execution thereof) “ unto the legal high priest, and Melchizedek,” and the sacrifices of the law, is only to beg or suppose the thing in question. They were all insti- tuted and made priests, and all their sacrifices were offered, princi-
SECT. 12.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 189
pally to this end, that they might prefigure and represent him as the only true high priest of the church, with that sacrifice of him- self which he offered for it; and without this consideration there would never have been any priest in the world of God’s appoint- ment. And this is the whole of what this man pleads, either directly or by sophistical diversions, to confound these two offices of Christ, and thereby utterly to evacuate his sacerdotal office. Wherefore, before I proceed to remove his remaining exceptions unto the truth and reality of this office, I shall confirm the real difference that is between it and the kingly office, in a confounding it wherewithal the strength of their whole endeavour against it doth consist.
12. The offices of king and priest may be considered either abso- lutely, or as they respect our Lord Jesus Christ. In the first way it will not be denied but that they are distinct. The one of them, is founded in nature, the other in grace. The one belongs unto men as creatures capable of political society, the other with respect unto their supernatural end only. It is true that the same person was sometimes vested with both these offices, as was Melchizedek; and the same usage prevailed among the heathens, as we shall see after- wards more at large.
“Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos.’’—Amn, iii. 80.
But this hinders not but that the offices were then distinct in their powers and duties, as the regal and prophetical were when David was both king and prophet. But at present our inquiry is concern- ing these offices in Christ only, whether they were both proper and distinct, or one of them comprised in the other, being but a meta- phorical expression of the manner of the exercise of its powers and duties. And concerning this we may consider,—
(1.) He is absolutely, and that frequently, called a priest or a high priest, in the Old Testament and the New. This was demon- strated in the entrance of these Exercitations Now, the notion or nature of a priest, and the office of the priesthood, or what is signi- fied by them, are plainly declared in the Scripture, and that in com- pliance with the unanimous apprehension of mankind concerning them; for, that the office of the priesthood is that faculty or power whereby some persons do officiate with God in the name and on the behalf of others, by offering sacrifice, all men in general are agreed. And thereon it is consented also that it is, in its entire nature, dis- tinct from the kingly power and office, whose first conception speaks a thing of another kind. Now, whereas the Scripture doth abso- lutely and frequently declare unto us that Christ is a priest, it doth nowhere intimate that his priesthood was of another kind than what it had im general declared it to be in all others, and what all men
190 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXIU.
generally apprehended of it. If any other thing wereintended thereby, “men must unavoidably be drawn into errors and mistakes. Nor doth it serve to undeceive us, that some come now and tell us that the Scripture by that name intends no such distinct office, but only the especial qualifications of Christ for the discharge of his kingly power, and the manner of his acting or exercising thereof; for the Scripture itself says no such things, but, as we shall see immediately, gives plain testimony unto the contrary.
(2.) His first solemn type was both a king and a priest, and he was so as to both of these offices properly. He was not a king pro- perly, and a high priest only metaphorically, or so called because of his careful and merciful administration of the kingly power com- mitted unto him; but he had the office of the priesthood properly and distinctly vested in him, as both Moses and our apostle do de- clare, Gen. xiv. 18, Heb. vii. 1. And he was more peculiarly a type of Christ as he was a priest than as he wasa king; for he is said to be “a priest,” and not a king, “after the order of Melchisedec.” There- fore that consideration of him is reassumed by the psalmist and by our apostle, and not the other. And is it not uncouth, that God, designing to prefigure one that should be a priest metaphorically only, and properly a king, should do it in and by a person who was a priest no less properly than he was a king, and in his so being was peculiarly and principally designed to prefigure him? Who can learn any thing of the mind of God determinately if his declarations thereof may be thus interpreted ?