SECT. 10.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 209°
tory, might be delivered from so pernicious an error. And in like manner it was so with respect unto them who, being satisfied in their -cessation and removal, were to be instructed in what. was the design of God in their institution, and what was their use; whereby they might at once discern that they were not a mere burden of charge- able and unuseful outward observances, and yet how great and ex- cellent a glory was exhibited in their stead now under the gospel. Besides, whereas God was now giving up the whole Scripture unto: the use of the church, what better season or occasion could be taken to declare the harmony and relation that is between the old testa- ment and the new, the analogy between the institutions of the one and the other, the preparations that were made in the shadows of the one for the introduction of the substance of the other, and so at: once to present a scheme of divine wisdom and grace in both, than this of the instruction of the church of the Hebrews in their trans- lation out of the one state into the other, which was peculiar to them, and wherein the Gentiles had no share? These things, I say (with holy. submission to the sovereign will and wisdom of the Holy Ghost), rendered this time and place most convenient for the fixing and stating the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ in a peculiar manner.
But our author adds: “ Quod igitur ipse Christus, cum adhue mortalis esset, promisit, ‘se futurum cum suis singulis diebus usque ad consummationem seculi; ‘se eos non relicturum orphanos,’ sed ‘eis daturum os et sapientiam, cui nemo possit resistere;’ et quod idem ex mortuis resuscitatus dixit Johanni, ‘Ne metuas, ecce vivo in secula seculorum;’ et divo Paulo, ‘Ne metuas, sed loquere et non tace, quia ego tecum sum;’ quod denique apud apostolos est, Jesum Christum caput esse ecclesiz, et ecclesiam esse ejus corpus, ecclesiam ab eo foveri, Christum nos liberare a futura ira, hoc est auctori Epis- tole ad Hebraeos Jesum Christum pontificem nostrum esse.” Add hereunto what he instructs us in a little afterwards: “ Ipse Christus et sacerdos factus est et oblatio; hoc est, absque figuris loquendo; quando Christus in ccelum ascendens factus est immortalis et cum Deo habitare ccepit in loco illo sanctissimo; cepit nostra salutis curam talem gerere, qualem se gesturum antea promiserat.”
Ans. This is in some measure plain dealing, and needful to the cause wherein these men are engaged; for although no great matter, at first view, seems to be contained herein, yet upon the truth of what he avers depends all the opposition they make unto the read sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. Hence, therefore, it is evident what is the true state of the controversy between these men and us about the priesthood of Christ. It is not, indeed, about the nature of that office, nor about the time and place of its exercise, though
VOL. XIX, 14
210 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTIS [EXERC. XXXII.
they needlessly compel us to treat about them also; but the sole question is, whether Christ have any such office or no. For if this be all they grant which this man asserts, as indeed it is,—namely, “That the Lord Christ, upon the account of some actings of his, which are no one of them properly or peculiarly sacerdotal, is only called a high priest figuratively by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,’—then indeed he neither hath nor ever had any such office at all. And this is the true state of our controversy with them, and with all by whom the satisfaction of Christ is denied, namely, whether he be the high priest of the church or no. And herein the Holy Ghost himself must answer for us and our profession.
This, then, is the substance of what they intend: The power, love, and care which the Lord Christ exerciseth in heaven towards his church makes him to be figuratively called our high priest; and in the same manner he is said to offer himself to God. But whence, then, comes it to pass, that whereas, according to the notion and understanding that is given us of the nature of these things (priest and sacrifice) in the Scripture,—suited unto the apprehension of all mankind about them, and which they answer or they are nothing,— there is no similitude or likeness between them and what Christ was and did, they are expressed by these terms, which are apt to lead unto thoughts of things quite of another kind than (as it seems) are intended? Why this, saith Smalcius, was “ex nimio figurate loquendi studio,”—“ out of an excessive desire in the holy writers to speak figuratively;” an account which whether any wise man will, or good man ought to be satisfied withal, I do much question. And yet, according to Smalcius, they much fail in their design. For whereas no wise man doth ever use figurative expressions unless he judge them necessary to set off the things he intends to express, and to greaten the apprehension of them, it is, if we may believe this author, unhappily fallen out otherwise with the writers of the New Testament in this matter; for instead of heightening or enlarging the things which they intended by all their figurative expressions, they do but lessen or diminish them. For so he informs us: “ Hoc tum ob alias causas, tum ob hance etiam hic primum annotare voluimus ut sciamus in istis figurate loquendi modis, quantumvis fortasse cuipiam videri possit, Christo summam in eis preestantiam tribui; tamen minus ei tribui quam res est.” No men, certainly, could ever have steered a more unhappy course. For no doubt they designed to ex- press the excellency of Christ and the usefulness of his mediation in these things unto the church; but in the pursuit of it they wholly omit those plain and proper expressions whereby they might have fully declared it, to the comfort of the church and the establishment of our faith, and betake themselves absolutely unto such figurative