*. SECT. 19.] _ OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 233
ter of great consolation and encouragement unto believers, but it is not to be asserted unto the exclusion of that which is the fountain of all the benefits which we receive by his mediation. And now it may be considered whether any thing be here offered by this author, either to prove that we are the first object of all the sacerdotal act- ings of Christ, or in answer unto the testimonies alleged that God alone is so. But he hath yet somewhat more to add, and therefore proceeds :—
“ Animadvertendum autem est in loco utroque, sed apertius in pos- teriori ob (1.) allusionem ad sacerdotium legale et similitudinem quandam que Christo cum pontificibus Aaronicis intercedat, (2.) ad Christum etiam accommodari infirmitatem, que in pontificibus istis exstiterit, quaque ii impelli debuerint ad aliorum infirmitates tanto promptius expiandas; cum tamen. in Christo (3.) quippiam alterius generis infirmitatibus illis, quee nihil aliud erant quam lapsus et ignorantiz seu delicta ex infirmitate profecta, opponatur, nempe tentationes seu afflictiones ipsius, quarum memor, nobis tentatis atque afilictis succurrere tanto promptius soleat.”
Ans. (1.) This man seems to aim at nothing but how he may evade the force of truth, and therefore lays hold of every appearing adyantage, though indeed contradicting himself therein; for in the entrance of his production of these testimonies, he tells us, “That they are such places as wherein the apostle, neglecting the allusion unto the priesthood of old, doth plainly and openly declare the na- ture of that of Christ.” But here, in the pressing of those testimonies, he pleads the express mention of that allusion as the principal rea- son of his exposition. (2.) It is not true that those infirmities of the priests of old which consisted in their sins and ignorances are any way accommodated unto Christ. The things here spoken of the nature of the priest’s office, and the discharge of it by them with whom it was intrusted, are distributed unto the subjects intended, according to their capacity. In the priests of old there were such infirmities as that they had need to offer for their own sins also ; in Christ there was no such thing, nor any thing that answered there- unto. But in all priests there were infirmities, such as inseparably attend our human nature in this mortal life; and these our high _ priest, Christ Jesus, was subject unto, whence he was liable to be tempted and to suffer. These the apostle doth not accommodate to Christ, but really ascribes unto him. See verses 7, 8, with our ex- position. (3.) This one concession of Crellius, that Christ our high priest, that is, as our high priest, was subject unto temptations and sufferings,—which he must be, or there is no similitude between him and the high priests of old in this matter of infirmities,—utterly over- throws his whole cause; for he was no way subject unto them but
234 OF THE ACTS AND ADJUNCTS [EXERC. XXXII
as and whilst he was-in this world. His glorified nature in heaven is liable neither to temptations nor sufferings. If therefore any of these infirmities were found in him as our high priest, which the apostle expressly affirms, and Crellius acknowledgeth, he was our high priest whilst he was on the earth. But he adds :—
“(1.) Ex quo apparet peccatis etiam illorum quos pontifices Aaronici expiare debebant, tentationes atque afilictiones nostras his locis respondere, quarum vis, (2.) quam ad nos perdendos habent dum tollitur et ab iis nos auxilio Christi eripimur, peccata nostra expiari dicuntur. (3.) Itaque non mirum est cetera quoque quae de Aaronicis sacerdotibus dicuntur, alio sensu ad Christum accommo- dari, et queedam de illis proprie, de Christo improprie, preestantiori tamen sensu accipi.”
Ans. (1.) Where there is any mention made of the offering of Christ for us, it is constantly with respect unto our sins, and not unto our temptations and sufferings, at least not in the first place. What he is affirmed to do with respect unto them, as to the aid, relief, and deliverance which he gives us, is all consequential unto his once offering of himself to take away sin. (2.) The foundation of the inference which is here made we have already taken away, namely, that the sinful infirmities of the priests of old were accommodated unto Christ with respect unto natural infirmities, or obnoxiousness unto temptations and sufferings ; which we have showed to be false. Yet hence he would infer that the sins of the people of old, for which the priests offered sacrifice, do correspond in this matter with our temptations and sufferings ;—that as they offered sacrifices for real sins, so Christ’s sacrifice is our relief from temptations and sufferings. The force of the reason pretended lies in this, that because the priests of the order of Aaron had sins themselves, therefore they offered sacrifices for the sins of the people, those which were truly and really so; but whereas the Lord Christ had no sins of his own, but only temptations and sufferings, therefore the sins offered for were tempta- tions and sufferings. Nothing can be more absurdly imagined; for both those qualifications, that he “had no sin,” and that he “ was tempted,” were necessary unto his offering for us and for our sins. Being “ made sin for us, and sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, bearing our sins in his _ own body on the tree.” Is this all, therefore, that the great dis- courses of Crellius concerning “the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, his ae a propitiation for our sins, his offering himself unto God for