Secondly, In the affirmative proposition the way whereby Christ came unto his office is declared, or by what authority he was ap- pointed a high priest: *AAA’ 6 AuAxous awpdg adrovyn— rar? gree “But he that said unto him.” There isan ellipsis inthe #eas apis words, which must be supplied to complete the anti- “*”" thesis: “ But he glorified him,” or “he made him to be an high priest, who said unto him, Yiég wou é7 od, tye) onmepoy ysyivinnd oz.” It is not easily apprehended how the apostle confirmeth the priesthood of Christ, or his call to office, by
Tits mov si ov.
488 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. ¥.
these words (they are twice used elsewhere by himself to other ends, Heb. i. 5, Acts xiii. 83); for these words do originally signify the eternal relation that, is between the Father and the Son, with their mutual love therein. To this purpose are they applied, Heb. i. 5. And because this was manifested in and by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when and wherein he was “ declared to be the Son of God with power,” Rom. i. 4, this testimony is applied thereunto, Acts xiii. 38. For the direct intention and the full meaning of the words, the reader may consult our exposition on chap. i. 5, where they are handled at large. But how they are pro- duced by our apostle here, as a confirmation of the priesthood of Christ, is an inquiry that is not without its difficulties; and seeing expositors are variously divided about it, their apprehensions must necessarily be inquired into and examined,
First, Those of the Socinian way, as Crellius and Schlichtingius, affirm that these words are constitutive of the priesthood of Christ; and that they were spoken to him after his resurrection. Hence they suppose two things will ensue:—1. That the Lord Christ was not a priest, at least no eomplete priest, until after his resurrection; for not until then was it said unto him, “Thou art my Son.” 2. That his priestly and kingly offices are the same; for his exaltation in his kingly power is principally intended in these words. But these things are fond and impious. For if the Lord Christ were not a priest until after his resurrection, then he was not so in the offering of himself to God, in his death and blood-shedding; which to say is to offer violence to the common sense of all Christians, the whole institution of the types of old, the analogy of faith, and express tes- monies of Scripture in particular, as hath been evinced in our Exer- citations. It expressly contradicts the apostle in this very place, or would make him contradict himself; for after this he affirms that as a priest he offered unto God “in the days of his flesh,” verse 7. They say, therefore, that he had some kind of initiation into his office by death, but he was not completely a priest until after his resurrection. The meaning whereof is, that he was not a complete priest until he had completely finished and discharged the principal work which belonged unto that office! I say, therefore,—1. That this distinction, of the Lord Christ being first an incomplete priest, and then afterwards made so completely, is foreign to the Scripture, a vain imagination of bold men, and inconsistent with his holy perfee- tion, who was at once made so by the oath of God. 2. It is destruc- tive of all the instructive parts of the type; for Aaron neither did nor could offer any sacrifice to God until he was completely conse- crated unto his office. Nor is any thing in the law more severely prohibited, than that any one should draw nigh to God in offering sacrifice that was not completely a priest. 3. Thus to interpret the
VER. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 489
testimony urged by the apostle, is completely to disappoint his pur- pose and intention in it. For he designs by it to prove that Christ, in the offering which he made in the days of his flesh, did not glorify himself to be made a priest, but was made so by him who said unto him, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” And if this was not said unto him until after his resurrection, then in his offering of himself before, he glorified himself to be a priest, for he was not yet made so of God the Father. 4. The vanity of confound- ing the kingly and priestly offices of Christ hath been sufficiently detected in our Exercitations.
Secondly, Others say that the confirmation of the priesthood of Christ in these words, is taken from the ancient usage before the law, whereby the priesthood was annexed unto the primogeniture. Where- fore God declaring the Lord Christ to be his only-begotten Son, the first-born, lord and heir of the whole creation, did thereby also de- clare him to be the high priest. And this exposition is embraced by sundry learned men, whose conjecture herein I cannot comply withal, For,—1l. The foundation of it is very questionable, if not unquestionably false; namely, concerning the priesthood of the first- born before the law. This, indeed, is the opinion of the Jews, and is so reported by Jerome, Epist. ad Evagr.; but the matter is not clear in the Scripture. Abel was not the first-born, nor Abraham either; yet they both offered sacrifice to God. 2. This would in- clude an express contradiction unto the scope of the apostle. For his design is to prove that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, called of God, and raised up extraordinarily, in a way peculiar and not common to any other. But on this supposition, he should be a priest after the order of the first-born. For what be- longed unto Christ as the first-born, see our exposition on chap. i. 3.