SECT. 13, 14. OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 217
of Christ’s intercession, “Cum igitur de Christo dicitur eum pro nobis interpellare, aliud nihil dicitur quam eum potentia illa sua sibi data curam nostri gerere.” It is not easily conceivable how a greater violence can be offered unto a sacred expression. By such interpretations it is possible to put an orthodox sense on all the writings of Smalcius. But in the vindication of his exposition of Christ’s intercession he adds, “ That the power which Christ exer- ciseth in his care of the church, and all his actings towards it, he received of God, and therefore in the use of it he is said to make intercession for us;”—that is, he doth one thing, and is said to do another! What he doth is not said,—namely, that he acts his power towards the church; and what he doth not, that he is said to do,— namely, to make intercession with God for us. The arguments whereby we confirm the truth asserted have been before declared and confirmed. Wherefore, to put a close unto this whole disputa- tion, and to give the reader a specimen of the subtlety and perpetual tergiversation of our adversaries in this cause, wherein also occasion will be administered further to explain sundry things relating unto this office of Christ, I shall examine strictly the whole discourse of Crellius on this subject, and therein give a peculiar instance of the sophistical ability of these men in evading the force of arguments and testimonies from the Scripture.
14. Grotius proves that the first actings of Christ as a priest were towards God, from Heb. v. 1, and chap. viii. 3, whereunto Crellius replies, cap. x. part. 3, p. 474, “ Postrema hee verba ita sunt com- parata, ut per se Socini sententize non repugnent, Grotium nil juvent. Fatetur enim Socinus quoque et satis clare docet auctor D. Heb. ii 17, actionem Christi qua sacerdos est, et sic ejus sacrificium expi- atorium esse ex eorum numero que pro homine fiant apud Deum; ut alia hic deductione, cum de Christi sacrificio queratur, non fuerit opus. De sensu ergo queritur, cum de verbis constet.”
Ans. (1.) The agreement which he pretends between Grotius and himself in this matter, as to the words of the apostle, is enough, with sober men, to put an end unto the whole controversy. The question _ is, Whether Christ, as a high priest, did act principally towards God, or towardsus? ‘Towards God,’ saith the apostle, and Grotius from him. ‘We are agreed,’ saith Crellius, ‘about these words; all the question is about their sense. As how? ‘Namely, whether they signify that Christ exerciseth this office towards God, or towards us;’ for this is that which, after a long tergiversation, he comes unto: Pag. 477, “Talem hac in parte Christi actionem esse aperte indicat apostolus que circa nos primo versetur non vero circa Deum ;’— “The apostle intimateth plainly, that such is the (sacerdotal) acting of Christ in this matter that it is first exercised towards us, and not
218 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXIIL
towards God.” Whatever, therefore, is otherwise pretended, the
question between him and us is about the words themselves and
their truth, and not about their sense and meaning. Forif it be true
that the Lord Christ xaéicrara: istp dvépixuy r& apig viv Octy, “is” appointed as a priest for men,” (or on their behalf,) “im the things
belonging unto God,” or to be done with God, Heb. v. 1, and that in
an especial manner, ei¢ rd spooQépew dipé re xal Sueias, chap. vill. 3,
“to offer gifts and sacrifices unto God,” the whole sense is granted
which we plead for. If he is not so appointed, if he doth not do so,
—that is, if he was not ordained to act with God in the behalf of men, if he did not offer sacrifice for them or the expiation of their sins,—then are not these words true, and it is in vain to contend
about the sense of them. (2.) I shall only further observe the
sophistry of that expression, “Actionem Christi qua sacerdos est,”—
“That action of Christ whereby he is a priest;” for he intends that
Christ is only denominated a priest from some action he doth per- form, whereas in truth he performs those actions by virtue of his
priesthood, and could not perform them were he not a priest in
office.
Having laid this foundation, Crellius enters upon a large discourse, wherein he doth nothing but perpetually divert from the argument in hand, and by a multitude of words strive to hide himself from the sense of it. Take him when he supposeth himself out of its reach and he speaketh plainly. So he doth, Lib. de Caus. Mort. Christi, pag. 7: “Cum consideratur Christus ut sacerdos, etsi similitudimem refert ejus qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine prestet, si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes eum talem esse sacerdotum qui Dei nomine aliquid nobis prestet;’—“ When Christ is considered as a priest, although he bears the likeness of one that doth something with God on the behalf of men, yet, if you look more narrowly into the matter itself, you will find that he is such a priest who acts to- wards us in the name of God.” If we may but hold him to this plain declaration of his mind (which, indeed, he must keep to or lose his cause), the vanity and tergiversation that are in all his other eva-_ sions and pretences will be evident.