SECT. 11.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 213
Ans. (1.) I understand not the force of the proof from this testi- mony unto the purpose of our author. The high priest did enter into the most holy place with the blood of the sacrifice. What will thence ensue? Had it been common blood before, and now first conse- crated unto God, something might be collected thence in compliance with his design; but it was the blood of the sacrifice which was dedicated and offered unto God before, the blood of the sacrifice that was slain, which was only carried into the most holy place and sprinkled there, as the representation of its virtue and efficacy. In like manner, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that was slain and sacrificed for us, after he had through the eternal Spirit offered him- self unto God, procuring thereby redemption for us in his blood, entered into heaven, there in the presence of God to represent the virtue of his oblation, and by his intercession (prefigured not by the offering, but by the sprinkling of blood) to make application thereof unto us. (2.) Redemption did in no sense follow the appearance of the high priest in the most holy place typically, nor the entrance of the Lord Christ into heaven really; but it is constantly assigned unto his death and blood-shedding,—which invincibly proves that therein alone his oblation of himself did consist. See 1 Pet. i.18, 19. Ex- piation may be considered either in respect of impetration or of application. In the first regard it did not follow, but precede the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, for the sacrifice was offered without to make atonement for sin; and the same atone- ment was made in sundry sacrifices whose blood was never sprinkled in the most holy place. In the latter sense alone it may be said to follow it, which we contend not about.
His next testimony is from Heb. ix. 11, 12, the words whereof he only cites, without attempting any improvement or application of them: “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with
_hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.”
_ Had he attempted any proof from these words, he would have found himself at a loss where to have fixed the argument. Where- fore, he contents himself with the bare sound of the words, sup- posing that may seem to favour his pretension. For it is plain from this text,—(1.) That Christ entered into heaven as our high priest, and not that he might become so; which is sufficient to scatter all his imaginations about this office of his. (2.) That he entered into heaven “ by his own blood,” which was shed and poured out in his sacrifice before that entrance; for really he carried no blood with him, as the high priest did of old, but only was accompanied with
214 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC, XXXIII.
the efficacy and virtue of that which was shed before. (3.) He is said to have “obtained eternal redemption” before his entrance into heaven, that being expressed as past upon his entrance; which invincibly proves that his sacrifice was antecedent thereunto.
His last testimony is Heb. viii. 4, which most of them make use of as their shield and buckler in this cause: “ For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” But the plain design and intention of the apostle allows them no relief from these words. He had proved invincibly that the Lord Christ was to be “ an high priest,” and had showed in some instances the nature of that office of his. Here, to confirm what he had so declared, he lays it down, by the way of con- cession, that if there were no other priesthood but that which is earthly and carnal, or which belonged unto the Judaical church, he could not have been a priest at all, which yet he had proved that it was necessary he should be. And the reason of this concession he adds, from the possession of that office by the priests of the house of Aaron, and the enclosure of its propriety unto them, as verse 5. Hence it unavoidably ensues that he must have a priesthood of another kind, or different from that of Aaron, which he expressly asserts as his conclusion, verse 6. A priest he must be; a priest after the order of them who offered gifts according to the law he could not be: and therefore he had another, and therefore a more excellent, priesthood.
12. Unto these testimonies, which are commonly pleaded by them all to deprive the Lord Christ of this office, at least whilst he was on the earth, I shall add the consideration of one, with the argu- ment from it, which I find not insisted on by any of them but only Smalcius alone: De Reg. Chr. cap. xxiii, “ Hane Christi oblationem auctor Epistole ad Hebreeos volens innuere, et aperte demonstrare eam tum demum esse perfectam cum Christus in.ccelum ascendit, ait, ‘Talem decebat nos habere pontificem, sanctum, labe carentem, impollutum, segregatum a peccatoribus, et excelsiorem ccelis factum ;’ et Paulo infra ait, ‘Jesum Christum semetipsum Deo immaculatum obtulisse per Spiritum eternum;’ intelligens per ista epitheta, ‘Sancti, labe carentis, impolluti, segregati a peccatoribus, et inno- centis,’ non Christi sanctitatem quoad mores, hac enim semper per- fecte Christus fuit preeditus, etiam antequam pontifex noster factus est, sed eam sanctitatem quee Christi naturam respicit. Quee Christi natura, quamdiu in terris fuit, qui fratribus per omnia fuit assimi- latus infirmitati et mortalitati obnoxia fuit; nunc vero ab ea in om- nem ezternitatem libera est.”