Tiasiobsis.
532 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. V.
reader may find at large in our exposition on chap. ii 10, The sum is, that it signifies to dedicate, to consecrate, to sanctify and set apart, and that by some kind of suffering or other. So the legal high priests were consecrated by the suffering and death of the beasts that were offered in sacrifice at their consecration, Exod. xxix. But it belonged unto the perfection of the priesthood of Christ to be consecrated in and by his own sufferings. I shall therefore only remove out of the way the corrupt exposition given us of this word by Schlichtingius:—
TeAciwois, “ Ista, seu consummatio Christi opponitur diebus carnis ejus: tum enim cum Christus infirmus esset, et ipse alieno auxilio indigeret, non potuerat aliis perfectum in omnibus auxilium ferre. Sed postquam consummatus est, id est, postquam immortalitatem, seu naturam incorruptibilem, supremamque in ccelo et terra potes- tatem est adeptus, sicut nihil illi desit amplius; seu postquam est adeo penitus consecratus, et plené in sacerdotem inauguratus (quem- admodum aliqui hance vocem explicandam putant), factus est causa salutis eeternee; nempe causa perfectissima. Nam et in diebus carnis suse erat causa salutis seternzee; sed consummatus, factus est causa perfectissima. Tunc causa erat nostra salutis tanquam Dei maximus legatus et apostolus; nunc tanquam summus pontifex et rex noster ccelestis a Deo constitutus.” There is also another expositor, who, although he grants that the reAciworg here mentioned hath respect unto the 5°X?9, or “ sacrifices” at the consecration of priests, which was antecedent unto their right of offering any thing in their own persons, yet so far complies with this interpretation as to understand, I know not what, “inauguration into a Melchisedecian priesthood, which consisted in a power of blessing after his resurrection;” and so, in the application of the word unto Christ, falls into a contradic- tion unto his own exposition of it, making it consist in his exaltation and endowment with power. But there is nothing sound in these discourses. For,—1. There is no opposition between this consecration of Christ and the days of his flesh; for it was effected in and by his sufferings, which were only in the days of his flesh. And we have given the reason before, and that taken from the perfection of his person and his office, why he was himself consecrated for ever in and by that sacrifice which he offered for us; for neither could he often offer himself, and it was destructive of his whole office to have been consecrated by the offering of any other. 2. There is too much boldness in that expression, that Christ could not perfectly help others in the days of his flesh. For, set aside the consideration of his divine nature, wherein he wrought whatever the Father wrought (which this sort of men will not admit), he had declared openly that “all power,” “ all things,” were given into his hand, Matt. xi., xxviii. ; “ power over all flesh,” John xvii.,—which surely extended unto an
VER. 9.] > EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 533
ability of relieving all them that were committed to him of God. It is true, he had not as yet absolutely perfected all the means of our salvation; but he was furnished with a fulness of power in their accomplishment, according to the method and order appointed of God unto them, 3. It is not said, that after he was consecrated, or perfected, or made immortal, as though these things were of the same importance; for he was consecrated in and by his sufferings, as is expressly affirmed, chap. ii. 10, which were antecedent unto and issued in his death. 4. That the Lord Christ was not constituted and consecrated a high priest before his entrance into heaven, is a direct contradiction unto the whole design of the apostle in this place. His purpose is, as hath been evidenced, and is acknowledged by all, to compare the Lord Christ as a high priest with the priests according to the law; and therein he shows his pre-eminence above them. Among the things which to this purpose he makes mention of, are his sufferings, verses 7, 8. Now if he suffered not when he was a priest, and as he was so, nothing could be less to his purpose. But whereas he principally designed to magnify the priestly office of Christ, or his person in the exercise of it, on the account of mercy and compassion, verse 2, he proves his excellency unto that end from his sufferings as he was a priest; whence in the future discharge of his office he is inclined to give out merciful assistance unto them that suffer. 5. The pretended distinction, that Christ in the days of his flesh was indeed the cause of salvation, but afterwards a most perfect cause of salvation, is unscriptural. The Lord Christ, in every condition, was the most perfect cause of salvation, although he performed some acts and works belonging thereunto in one estate, and some in another, according as the nature of the works them- selves to be performed unto that end did require: for some things that were necessary unto our perfect salvation could not be accom- plished but in a state of humiliation; and some, on the other hand, depended on his exaltation. 6. What is affirmed concerning Christ’s being the prophet of the church, and apostle of God, in the days of his flesh, but of his being a king and priest afterwards, is another invention of this sort of men. He was always equally the king, priest, and prophet of the church, though he exercises these offices and the several acts or duties of them variously, according as the nature of them doth require.