(3.) In the giving of the law God did renew and multiply the instructive types and representations of these offices of Christ. And herein, in the first place, he takes care to teach the church that he (whom all those things which he then did institute did signify) was to be a priest; for of any prefiguration of his kingly power there is very little spoken in the law. I shall at present take it for granted, as having sufficiently proved it elsewhere, and which is not only positively affirmed but proved with many arguments by our apostle, namely, that the’ principal end of Mosaical institutions was to pre- figure, represent, and instruct the church, though darkly, in the nature of the offices, work, and duties, of the promised Messiah. This being so, if the Lord Christ were to be a priest only metaphorically and improperly, and a king properly, his priesthood being included in his kingly office, and signifying no more but the manner of his administration thereof, how comes it to pass that his being a priest should be taught and represented so fully and distinctly in so many ordinances, by so many types and figures, as it is, and his kingly power be scarce intimated at all? for there is no mention of any typical kings in the law, but only in the allowance which God gave
SECT. 12. | EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 191
the people to choose such a ruler in future times, wherein he made provision for what he purposed to do afterwards, Deut. xvii. 14, 15, Moreover, when God would establish a more illustrious typical re- presentation of his kingly office m the family of David, to manifest that these two offices should be absolutely distinct in him, he so ordained in the law that it should be ever afterwards impossible that the same person should be both king and priest, until He came who was typified by both; for the kingly office and power were con- fined, by divine institution, to the house and family of David, as that of the priesthood was unto the family of Aaron. If these offices had been to be one and the same in Christ, these institutions had not instructed the church in what was to come.
(4.) A distinct office has a “ distinct power or faculty” for the per- formance of its acts in a due manner with respect unto a certain end. And those things whereby it is constituted are distinct in the kingly and priestly offices of Christ; for,—
[1.] Moral powers and acts are distinguished by their objects. But the object of all the actings of the sacerdotal power of Christ is God; of the regal, men. For every priest, as we have showed, acts in the name and on the behalf of men with God; but a king, in the name and on the behalf of God with and towards men, as to the ends of that rule which God hath ordained. The priest represents men to God, pleading their cause; the king represents God to men, acting his power. Wherefore, these being distinct powers or faculties, duties and acts, they prove the offices whereunto they do belong, or from which they proceed, to be distinct also. And this consideration demonstrates a greater difference between these two offices than between the kingly and prophetical, seeing by virtue of them both some men equally act in the name of God towards others. But that the priesthood of Christ is exercised towards God on the behalf of men, and that therein the formal nature of any priesthood doth con- sist, whereby it is effectually distinguished from all other offices and powers that any men are capable of, we have the common consent of mankind to prove, the institution of God under the old testament, with express testimonies in the new confirming the same.
[2.] As the acts of these offices are distinguished by their objects, so also are they and their drorsAéouara between themselves, or in their own nature. The acts of the sacerdotal office operate morally only, by way of procurement or acquisition ; those of the regal office are physical, and really operative of their effects: for all the acts of the priestly office belong unto oblation or intercession. And their effects consist either in, (1.) “ averruncatione mali,” or (2.) “ procura- tione boni.” These they effect morally only, by procuring and ob- taining of them. The acts of the kingly office are legislation, com-
192 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXXII.
munication of the Spirit, helps, aids, assistances of grace, destruction of enemies, and the like. But these are all physically operative of their effects. Wherefore the offices whence they proceed must be distinct in their natures, as also they are. And what hath been spoken may suffice at present to evince the difference between these two offices of Christ, which those men are the first that ever called into doubt or controversy.
13. I shall close this discourse with the consideration of an at- tempt of Crellius to vindicate his doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ from an objection of Grotius against it, namely, that it “diminishes the glory of Christ, in ascribing unto him only a figura- tive priesthood.” For hereunto he answers, by way of concession, (1.) -“ That indeed they allow Christ to be a priest metaphorically only, as believers are said to be kings and priests, and to offer sacri- fices.” Now, this is plainly to deny any such real office, which sometimes they would not seem to do, and to substitute an external denomination in the room thereof. What are the consequents hereof, and what a pernicious aspect this hath upon the faith and consolation of all believers, is left unto the judgment of all who con- cern themselves in these things. He answers, (2.) “ That although they deny the Lord Christ to be a priest properly so called, yet the dignity which they ascribe unto him under that name and title is not metaphorical, but real, and a greater dignity than their adver- saries will allow.” For the latter clause, or who they are that ascribe most glory and honour to Jesus Christ, according as that duty is prescribed unto us in the Scripture, both with respect unto his person, his mediation, and all his offices, with the benefits redounding unto the church thereby,—they or we,—is left unto every impartial or unprejudiced judgment in the world. For the former, the question is not about what dignity they assign to Christ, nor about what names: or titles they think meet to give him, but about the real honour of the priesthood. That this is an honour in itself, that it was so to Aaron, that it is so to Christ, our apostle expressly declares, Heb. v. 4, 5. If Christ had it not, then had Aaron a real honour which he had not, and therein was preferred above him. But, saith he, “Although he is compared with Aaron, and his priesthood opposed unto his, and preferred above it, yet it is not in things of the same kind, though expressed under the same name, whereby things more perfect and heavenly are compared with things earthly and imperfect.” But,—(1.) This leaves the objection in its full force; for whatever dignity Christ may have in other things above Aaron, yet in the honour of the priesthood Aaron was preferred before him; for it is a real priesthood which the apostle asserts to be so honour- able. And although a person who hath it not may have a dignity