Ans. (1.) These properties of “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” which the apostle ascribes unto our Lord Jesus as our
SECT. 12.] OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 215
high priest, Heb. vii. 26, as also his offering himself “ without spot,” chap. ix. 14, this man ascribes unto Christ as exalted in heaven, in contradistinction unto what he was whilst on the earth; for thence he taketh his argument that he was not a priest whilst he was on the earth, namely, because he was so holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, in heaven. Now, if it do not hence follow that he was impure, defiled, guilty, like other sinners, whilst he was on the earth, yet it doth undeniably,—and that is the matter con- tended for,—that he was not holy, harmless, and undefiled, in the sense here intended by the apostle. How this can be freed from open blasphemy I am not able to discern,
(2.) He is not secured by his ensuing distinction, that the Lord Christ was before, whilst on the earth, perfectly holy as to his man- ners, but that the epithets here used respect his nature: for, not to assign all these properties unto the nature of Christ from the instant of his conception, or to deny them to belong thereunto, is no less contrary to the Scripture and really blasphemous than to deny him to have been holy with respect unto his life and conversation; for he was the “holy thing” that was born of the Virgin, and as he was born of her, by virtue of the miraculous creation and sanctification of his nature in the womb, whereof I have treated elsewhere at large.
(3.) Here is a supposition included, that all the difference between Christ and us, whilst he was in this world, consisted only in the use of his freedom unto the perfect obedience wherein we fail and come short. That his nature was absolutely holy and impeccable, ours sinful and defiled, is cast out of consideration; and yet to deny this difference between him and us is no less blasphemous than what we before rejected.
(4.) Christ in this world was indeed obnoxious to sufferings and death itself, as having a nature, on that account, like unto his brethren in all things. But to suppose that he was obnoxious to infirmity and mortality because he was not yet holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, is injurious unto his person, and derogatory from his love; for it was not from the necessity of his own condition in human nature that he was exposed unto sufferings or unto death, but he became so by voluntary condescension for our sakes, Phil. ii. 5-8. Weare obnoxious unto these things on our own account, he only on ours.
(5.) In the death of Christ, when he shed his blood, he was dvds duapos xual doxtros, “a lamb without spot and without blemish,” 1 Pet. i. 19; and he is said to offer himself duapov r@ O«@, “ without spot to God,” Heb. ix. 14. He was therefore no less so before and in his death than after. And it is a surprisal, to be put, by one
216 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXIII.
professing himself a Christian, to the work of proving the Lord Christ to have been, in his entire nature, in this world holy and harmless.
(6.) He doth not in the least relieve himself from those impieties by his ensuing discourse on Eph. v. 26, 27, “ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” He contends that the making of the church “ holy and without blemish” in this place concerns its glorified’ state, because it is therewithal said to be a “glorious church.” In the same sense, therefore, as he affirmeth, is Christ said to be “holy” when he was “glorified,” and not before. But he adds herein to the weight and number of his pre- ceding enormities: for in what sense soever the church is said to be made holy or to be sanctified, whether it be in grace or as instated in glory, it is so by being washed and cleansed from the spots, stains, and filth which originally it had; but to ascribe such a sanctifica- tion or making holy unto the Lord Christ is the highest blasphemy imaginable.
We may therefore firmly conclude, with the whole church of God, according unto the Scripture and the nature of the thing itself, that the Lord Christ was a priest and executed his priestly office whilst he was on the earth, even then when he offered up himself unto God with strong cries and supplications at his death on the cross.
13. SECONDLY, That which yet remains, as belonging unto our pre- sent design, is the consideration of the direct and immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, or the exercising his mediatory’ power by virtue of his priestly office. This we have declared before and proved, namely, that it is God himself. Our meaning is, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the high priest of the church, acts on its behalf with God, doing those things which are to be done with him, according to the covenant before explained. As a king and prophet he acts in the name of God towards us; as a priest he acts towards God on our behalf. This the whole economy of the Aaronical priest- hood doth confirm, and the very nature of the great duties of this office, oblation and intercession, do necessarily infer. Doth Christ ofter himself in sacrifice unto God, or unto us? Doth he intercede with God, or with us? It is no small evidence of the desperate cause of our adversaries, that they are forced to put uncouth and horrid senses on these sacerdotal duties, to accommodate them unto their sentiments. So after that Smalcius hath told us that these things were thus expressed in Scripture “ex nimio figurate loquendi studio,” so traducing the wisdom and sobriety of the penmen thereof, he adds dn the explication of that figurative expression, as he would have it,