SECT. 11.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 211
é expressions as whereby the dignity of Christ is diminished, and less is ascribed unto him than is due. Certainly men have used to make very bold with the Scriptures and their own consciences who can satisfy themselves with such imaginations.
But yet when all is done, all this, as hath been manifested before will not serve the turn, nor disprove our assertion, that the Lord Christ was a priest whilst on the earth; for all the things which they thus ascribe unto him were then discharged by him. Where- fore we shall further consider what direct opposition they make hereunto.
11. It is no matter at all whom we fix upon to call to an account herein, Their wits are barren in a peculiar manner on this subject, so that they all say the same things, one after another, without any considerable variation. The reader, if he please, may satisfy himself herein by consulting Socinus, Volkelius, Ostorodius, Smalcius, Mos- corovius, Orellius, and Schlichtingius, in the places before cited. I shall therefore confine myself to him who hath last appeared in the defence of this cause, and who seems to have put the newest gloss upon it. This is Lud. Woolzogen., in his Compend. Relig. Chris- tian, sect. 51, whose words ensue:—
“ Preeterea etiam hoc nobis paucis attingendum est quod sacerdo- tale Christi munus non bene intelligant illi qui statuunt Christum sacrificium expiatorium pro peccatis nostris in cruce peregisse et ab- solvisse. Nam in veteri fcedere, cujus (1.) sacrificia fuere typi sacri- ficii Christi, non fuit factum sacrificium (2.) expiatorium in macta- tione victimz seu pecudis, sed tantum fuit preparatio quedam ad’ sacrificium. Verum in eo (3.) consistebat sacrificium quando ponti- fex maximus cum sanguine ingrediebatur in sanctum sanctorum, atque (4.) eum Deo offerebat et sacrificabat. Sacrificare enim pro- prie non est (5.) mactare, sed offerre et Deo sacrare.”
Ans. (1.) It is acknowledged that the sacrifices under the old testament were types of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, all of them were so which were expiatory or appointed to make atonement. Although, therefore, these men are wary, yet they stand in such an unstable and slippery place as that they often reel and betray them- selves; for if all expiatory sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, most of them being perfect and complete without carrying any of their blood into the sanctuary, that of Christ must be so before his entrance into heaven. (2.) As for what he affirms of the expiatory sacrifice,—that is, the anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation,—that it consisted not in the slaying of the sacrifice, which was only a certain preparation thereunto, it is either sophistical or
It is sophistical, if by “ mactatio pecudis” he intend only the single act of slaying the sacrifice: for so it is granted that was not the
212 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXII.
entire sacrifice, but only a part of it; the oblation of it on the altar was also required unto its perfection. But it is false, if he intend thereby all that was done in the offering of the beast, namely, its adduction to the altar, its mactation, the effusion of its blood, the sprinkling thereof, the laying of the offering on the altar, the con- sumption of it by fire,—all which belonged thereunto. All these things, even all that preceded the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, are distinguished from what was done afterwards, and are to be considered under that head which he calls the slaying of the victim. But then his assertion is false, for the sacrifice con- sisted therein, as we have proved. (8.) That the expiatory sacrifice did not consist in the entrance and appearance of the high priest in the most holy place with the blood of the beast offered is manifest from hence, because he was commanded to offer the beast in sacrifice before his entrance into the sanctuary, which was a consequent of the sacrifice itself, and represented the effects of it. (4) That the high priest sacrificed the blood unto God in the sanctuary, as he affirms, is an assertion that hath no countenance given unto it in the Scripture, nor hath it so from any common notion concerning the nature of sacrifices; and the atonement that is said to be made for the most holy place by the sprinkling of the blood towards the merey- seat was effected by the sacrifice as offered before, whereof that ceremony was a sign and token. (5.) That to sacrifice and to slay are the same in the original, so as that both these actions,—that is, sacred and common slaying,—are expressed ofttimes by the same word, I have before demonstrated. But withal I grant that unto a complete sacrifice the ensuing oblation on the altar was also required. Hence was the sacrifice offered and consecrated unto God.
But he endeavours to confirm his assertion with some testimonies of our apostle: “Et hoc est quod ait auctor Epistole ad Hebreeos : (1.) ‘In secundum tabernaculum’ (id est, in sanctissimum sacrarium) ‘semel quotannis solus- pontifex, non absque sanguine ingreditur, quem offert pro seipso et pro populi ignorantiis, Heb. ix. 7, quibus verbis elucet pontificem maximum tum demum sacrificasse, et obtu- lisse quando sanguinem intulit in sanctissimum sanctuarium, et cum eo coram Deo apparuit. Hee apparitio ac oblatio, demum (2.) ex- piatio et redemptio a peccatis consenda est. Ita igitur in Christo quoque qui et pontifex maximus et simul etiam victima esse debuit, mactatio corporis ejus in cruce, nihil aliud quam preparatio fuit ad verum sacrificium. Sacrificium autem ipsum peractum est tum, cum in sanctuarium celeste ingressus est cum proprio sanguine suo, ibique Deo seipsum tanquam victimam obtulit et exhibuit, neenon tanquam sternus pontifex pro nobis apud Deum intercedit, nostram expiationem procurat.”