SECT. 13, 14.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 1938
of another kind, which may be more honourable than that of the priesthood, yet if he have not that also, he therein comes behind him that hath it. (2.) It is true, where things fall under the same appellations, some properly, and some metaphorically only, those of the latter sort, though they have not so good a title as the other to the common name whereby they are called, yet may they in their own nature be more excellent than they; but this is only when the things properly so called have notable defects and imperfections accompany- ing of them. But this consideration hath here no place; for the real office of the priesthood includes nothing in it that is weak or impotent, nor are the acts of it in any thing inferior unto what may be fancied as metaphorical. And whereas the dignities of all the mediatory actings of Christ are to be taken from the efficacy of them, and their tendency unto the glory of God and the salvation of the church, it is evident that those which are assigned unto him as the acts of a real priesthood are far more worthy and honourable than what they ascribe unto him under the metaphorical notion of that office. (3.) If the priesthood of Christ is not opposed, as such, unto the priesthood of Aaron, on what grounds or from what principles doth our apostle argue unto the abolishing of the priesthood of Aaron from the introduction of that of Christ, plainly asserting an inconsistency between them in the church at the same time? for there is no such opposition nor inconsistency, where the offices in- tended are not both of them properly so, but one of them is only metaphorically so called. So there is no inconsistency in the con- tinuance of the kingly office of Christ, which is real, and all believers being made kings in a sense only metaphorically.
14. But Valentinus Smalcius will inform us of the original and oceasion of all our mistakes about the priesthood of Christ: De Regn. Christ. cap. xxiii., “ Quo porro figurate loquendi nimio studio factum est ut etiam de Christo dicatur eum apud Deum pro nobis interpellare,” etc. ;—“ It was out of an excessive desire” (in the Holy Ghost or the apostles) “to speak figuratively, that Christ is said to intercede for us, and consequently to be a priest.” But he after- wards makes an apology for the Holy Spirit of God, why he spake in so low and abject a manner concerning Christ; and this was, the care he took that none should believe him to be God. We have had some among ourselves who have traduced and reproached other men for the use of “fulsome metaphors,” as they call them, in the expres- sion of sacred things, though evidently taken out of the Scripture; but this man alone hath discovered the true fountain of that mis- carriage, which was the “ excessive desire of the holy writers to speak figuratively,” lest any one should believe Jesus Christ to be God from the things that really belong unto him.
VOL, XIX. 13
194 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXII.
EXERCITATION XXXIIT.
OF THE ACTS OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST, THEIR OBJECT, WITH THE TIME AND PLACE OF ITS EXERCISE.
1. The acts and adjuncts of the priesthood of Christ proposed to consideration— The acts of it two.in general, oblation and intercession—Vanity of confes- sions in general,ambiguous words, whilst their sense is undetermined, 2. The true nature of the oblation of Christ—Opinion of the Socinians concerning it. 3. The nature of his intercession, with their conceptions about it. 4. Things proposed unto a further discussion. 5. The time and place of Christ’s susception and discharge of the office of the priesthood. 6. The first argu- ment for the time of the exercise of this office, taken from the concession of ‘the adversaries. 7. The second, from the effect of his sacrifice in making atonement, and the prefiguration thereof in the sacrifices of the law. 8. Thirdly, From his entrance into heaven as a high priest with respect to the sacrifice he had offered. 9. Fourthly, Other priests, who entered not into the sanctuary, types of Christ in their office and sacrificing, vindicated from the exception of Crellius. 10. The account given of the priesthood of Christ by Valentinus Smalcius examined. 11. The arguings of Woolzogenius to the same purpose. 12. The boldness and impiety of Smalcius reproved. 13. God the immediate object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ. 14-19. This proved and vindicated from the exceptions of Crellius. 20, Reasons for so doing. ’
1. Havine declared and vindicated the nature of the sacerdotal office of our Lord Jesus Christ, it remaineth that we consider the acts of it distinctly, with some of the most important adjuncts of its exercise. And it is not so much the dogmatical declaration of these things that I design, which also hath already been sufiiciently dis- charged, as the vindication of them from the perverse senses put upon them by the Socinians.
The general acts of the Lord Christ as the high priest of the church are two,—namely, oblation and intercession. These the nature of the office in general doth require, and these are constantly assigned unto him in the Scripture. But concerning these, their nature, effi- cacy, season, use or end, there is no agreement between us and the Socinians. And I know not that there is any thing of the like nature fallen out among those who profess themselves to be Chris- tians, wherein persons fully agreeing in the same words and expres- sions, as they and we do in this matter, should yet really disagree, and that unto the greatest extremity of difference, about every thing signified by them, as we do herein. And this sufficiently discovers the vanity of all attempts to reconcile the differing parties among Christians by a confession of faith, composed in such general words and terms as that each party may safely subscribe and declare its assent unto. Neither is the insufficiency of this design re- lieved by the additional advice that this confession be composed