Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

tinctly in so many ordinances, by so many types and figures as it is, and his kingly power be scarce intimated at all. For there is no mention of any typical kings in the law, but only in the allowance which God gave the people to choose such a ruler in future times, wherein he made provision for what he purposed to do afterwards, Deut. xvii. 14, 15. Moreover, when God. would establish a more illustrious typical representation of his kingly office in the family of David, to manifest that these two offices should be absolutely distinct in him, he so ordained in the law, that it should be ever afterwards impossible that the same person should be both king and priest, until he came who was typified by both. For the kingly office and power, was confined by divine institution to the house and family of David, as that of the priesthood was to the family of Aaron. If these offices had been to be one and the same in Christ, these institutions had not instructed the church in what was to

come.

4. A distinct office is a distinct power and faculty for the performance of its acts, in a due manner, with respect to a certain end. And these things whereby it is constituted, are distinct in the kingly and priestly offices of Christ. For,

1. Moral powers and acts are distinguished by their objects. But the object of all the actings of the sacerdotal power of Christ, is God; of the regal, men. For every priest, every priest, as we have shewed, acts in the name and on the behalf of men with God. But a king, in the name and on the behalf of God, with and towards men, as to the ends of that rule which God hath ordained. The priest represents men to God pleading their cause, the king represents God to men acting his power. Wherefore, these being distinct powers, or faculties, duties and acts, they prove the offices whereunto they do belong, or from which they proceed, to be distinct also. And this consideration demonstrates a greater difference between these two offices, than between the kingly and prophetical, seeing by virtue of them both, some men equally act in the name of God towards others. But that the priesthood of Christ is exercised towards God on the behalf of men, and that therein the formal nature of any priesthood doth consist, whereby it is effectually distinguished from all other offices and powers that any men are capable of, we have the common consent of mankind to prove, the institution of God under the Old Testament, with express testimonies in the New confirming the same.

2. As the acts of these offices are distinguished by their objects, so also are they and their aлorsλμara, between themselves or in their own nature. The acts of the sacerdotal office operate morally, only by way of procurement or acquisition. Those VOL. II.

[ocr errors]

of the regal office are physical, and really operative of their effects. For all the acts of the priestly office belong to oblation, or intercession. And their effects consist, either in Averruncatione mali, or Procuratione boni. These they effect morally only by procuring and obtaining of them. The acts of the kingly office are legislation, communication of the Spirit, helps, aids, assistances of grace, destruction of enemies, and the like. But these are all physically operative of their effects. Wherefore the offices whence they proceed, must be distinct in their natures, as they also are. And what hath been spoken, may suffice at present to evince the difference between these two offices of Christ, which those men are the first that ever called into doubt or controversy.

6

§ 13. I shall close this discourse with the consideration of an attempt of Crellius, to vindicate his doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ, from an objection of Grotius against it, namely, that it 'diminished the glory of Christ, in ascribing to him only a figurative priesthood. For hereunto he answers, 1. By way of concession, that indeed they allow Christ to be a priest metaphorically only, as believers are said to be kings and priests, and to offer sacrifices.' Now this is plainly to deny any such real office, which sometimes they would not seem to do, and to substitute an external denomination in the room thereof. What are the consequents hereof, and what a pernicious aspect this hath upon the faith and consolation of all believers, is left to the judgment of all who concern themselves in these things. 2. He answers, That although they deny the Lord Christ to be a priest properly so called, yet the dignity which they ascribe to him under that name and title, is not metaphorical but real, and a greater dignity than their adversaries will allow. For the latter clause, or who it is that ascribe most glory and honour to Jesus Christ, according as that duty is prescribed to us in the Scripture, both with respect to his person, his mediation, and all his offices, with the benefits redounding to the church thereby, they or we, is left to every impartial or unprejudiced judgment in the world. For the former, the question is not, about what dignity they assign to Christ, nor about what names or titles they think meet to give him, but about the real honour of the priesthood. That this is an honour in itself, that it was so to Aaron, that it is so to Christ, our apostle expressly declares, Heb. v. 4,5. If Christ had it not, then had Aaron a real honour which he had not, and therein was preferred above him. But, saith he, Although he is compared with Aaron, and his priesthood opposed unto his, and preferred above it, yet it is not in things of the same kind, though expressed under the same name, whereby things

6

more perfect and heavenly are compared with things earthly and imperfect.' But, 1. This leaves the objection in its full force. For whatever dignity Christ may have in other things above Aaron, yet in the honour of the priesthood Aaron was preferred before him, for it is a real priesthood which the apostle asserts to be so honourable. And although a person who hath it not, may have a dignity of another kind, which may be more honourable than that of the priesthood, yet if he have not that also, he therein comes behind him that hath it. 2. It is true, where things fall under the same appellations, some properly and some metaphorically only, those of the latter sort, though they have not so good a title as the other to the common name whereby they are called, yet may they in their own nature be more excellent than they. But this is only when the things properly so called have notable defects and imperfections accompanying of them. But this consideration hath here no place; for the real office of the priesthood includes nothing in it that is weak or impotent, nor are the acts of it in any thing inferior to what may be fancied as metaphorical. And whereas the dignities of all the mediatory actings of Christ are to be taken from the efficacy of them, and their tendency to the glory of God and the salvation of the church, it is evident that those which are assigned to him as the acts of a real priesthood, are far more worthy and honourable than what they ascribe unto him, under the metaphorical notion of that office. 3. If the priesthood of Christ is not opposed as such to the priesthood of Aaron, on what grounds or from what principles doth our apostle argue to the abolishing of the priesthood of Aaron, from the introduction of that of Christ, plainly asserting an inconsistency between them in the church at the same time. For there is no such opposition nor inconsistency, where the offices intended are not both of them properly so, but one of them is only metaphorically so called. So there is no inconsistency in the continuance of the kingly office of Christ, which is real; and all believers being made kings in a sense only metaphorical.

§ 14. But Valentinus Smalcius will inform us of the original and occasion of all our mistakes about the priesthood of Christ, De Regn. Christ. cap. 23. Quo porro figurate loquendi nimio studio factum est, ut etiam de Christo dicatur eum apud Deum pro nobis interpellare, &c. It was out of an excessive desire' (in the Holy Ghost or the apostles) ' to speak figuratively, that Christ is said to intercede for us; and consequently to be a priest.' But he afterwards makes an apology for the Holy Spirit of God, why he spake in so low and abject a manner concerning Christ. And this was the care he took, that none should believe him to be God. We have had some among ourselves, who have traduced

and reproached other men for the use of fulsome metaphors, as they call them, in the expression of sacred things, though evidently taken out of the Scripture; but this man alone hath discovered the true fountain of that miscarriage, which was the excessive desire of the holy writers to speak figuratively, lest any one should believe Jesus Christ to be God, from the things that really belong to him.

EXERCITATION XXXIII.

Of the Acts of the Priesthood of Christ, their Object, with the Time and Place of its Exercise.

§ 1. The acts and adjuncts of the priesthood of Christ proposed to consideration. The acts of it two in general, oblation and intercession. Variety of concessions in general, ambiguous words, whilst their sense is undetermined. §2. The true nature of the oblation of Christ. Opinion of the Socinians concerning it. § 3. The nature of his intercession, with their conceptions about it. § 4. Things proposed unto a further discussion. 5. The time and place of Christ's susception and discharge of the office of the priesthood. § 6. The first argument for the time of the exercise of this office taken from the concession of the adversaries, 7.The second from the effect of his sacrifice in making atonement, and the prefiguration thereof in the sacrifices of the law. 8. Thirdly, from his entrance into heaven as a High Priest with respect to the sacrifice he had offered. §9. Fourthly, other priests who entered not into the sanctuary, types of Christ in their office and sacrificing, vindicated from the exception of Crellius. § 10. The account given of the priesthood of Christ by Valentinus Smalcius examined. § 11. The arguings of Woolzogenius to the same purpose. § 12. The boldness and impiety of Smalcius reproved. §13. God the immediate object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ. §14. Proved and vindicated from the exceptions of Crellius.

§ 1. HAVING declared and vindicated the nature of the sacer

dotal office of our Lord Jesus Christ, it remaineth that we consider the acts of it distinctly, with some of the most important adjuncts of its exercise. And it is not so much the dogmatical declaration of these things that I design, which also hath already been sufficiently discharged, as the vindication of them from the perverse senses put upon them by the Socinians.

The general acts of the Lord Christ as the High Priest of the church are two, namely oblation and intercession. These the nature of the office in general doth require, and these are constantly assigned unto him in the Scripture. But concerning the nature, efficacy, season, use or end of these, there is no agreement between us and the Socinians. And I know not that there is any thing of the like nature fallen out among those who profess themselves, to be Christians, wherein persons fully agreeing in the same words and expressions, as they and we do in this matter, should yet really disagree, and that to the greatest extremity of

« ForrigeFortsæt »