that God is such an one as themselves, and that he is so little concerned in their sins that they need not themselves be much concerned in them. Such thoughts they are apt to conceive, if he do but hold his peace for a season, and not reprove them for their sins, Ps. 1. 21. And if their hearts are fully set in them to do evil, because in some signal instances judgment is not speedily executed, Eccles. viii. 11, how much more will such pernicious consequents ensue, if they are persuaded that it may be God will never punish them for their sins, seeing it is absolutely at his pleasure whether he will do so or no!-that neither his righteousness, nor his holiness, nor his glory, requires any such thing at his hands! This is not the language of the law; no, nor yet of the consciences of men, unless they are debauched. Is it not, with most Christians, certain that eventually God lets no sinners go unpunished? Do they not believe that all who are not interested by faith in the sufferings of Christ, or at least that are not saved on the account of his undergoing the punishment due to sin, must perish eternally? And if this be the absolute rule of God's proceeding towards sinners, if he never went out of the way of it in any one instance, whence should it proceed but from what his nature doth require?

Lastly, God is, as we have showed, the righteous judge of all the world. What law is unto another judge, who is to proceed by it, that is the infinite rectitude of his own nature unto him. And it is necessary to a judge to punish where the law requires him so to do; and if he do not, he is not just. And because God is righteous by an essential righteousness, it is necessary for him to punish sin as it is contrary thereunto, and not to acquit the guilty. And what is sin cannot but be sin, neither can God order it otherwise; for what is contrary to his nature cannot by any act of his will be rendered otherwise. And if sin be sin necessarily, because of its contrariety to the nature of God, on the supposition of the order of all things by himself created, the punishment of it is on the same ground necessary also.

6. On the grounds insisted on, argued and proved it is, that on the supposition before also laid down and explained,—namely, that God would glorify himself and his grace in the recovery and salvation of sinners, which proceeded alone from the free counsel of his will, it was, with respect unto the holiness and righteousness of God, absolutely necessary that the Son of God, in his interposition for them, should be a priest, and offer himself for a sacrifice; seeing therein and thereby he could and did undergo the punishment which, in the judgment of God, was due unto the sins of them that were to be saved by him.

7. Hereon we lay the necessity of the death and suffering of Jesus Christ; as also our apostle doth declare, Heb. ii. 10, 11. And they

who are otherwise minded are not able to assign so much as a sufficient cause or just and peculiar reason for it; which yet to think it had not is highly injurious to the wisdom and grace of God. The reason assigned by the Socinians is, that by his death he might confirm the doctrine that he taught, and our faith in himself, as also to set us an example of patient suffering. But these things were not highly necessary if considered alone, nor peculiar, and such there must be, or no man can satisfy himself why the Son of God should suffer and die; for God sent many before to reveal his will,-Moses, for instance, whose declarations thereof all men were bound to believe, and yet caused them not to die violent, bloody, and cursed deaths, in the confirmation of them. So the death of Moses was concealed from all the world, only it was known that he died; his doctrine was not confirmed by his death. Besides, our Lord had such a power of working miracles as to give an uncontrollable evidence unto his being sent of God, and of God's approbation of what he taught. Nor can it be pretended that it was necessary that he should die that he might rise again, and so confirm his doctrine by his resurrection; for he might have died for this end any other way, and not by a shameful and cursed death,—not by a death in the view whereof he cried out that he was forsaken of God. Besides, on the supposition that Christ died only to confirm his doctrine, his resurrection was not of any more virtue to ingenerate, strengthen, or increase faith in us, than any other miracle that he wrought; for himself tells us that the rising of any one from the dead absolutely is not accompanied with such a peculiar efficacy to that purpose, Luke xvi. 31. But on supposition that he died for our sins, or underwent the punishment due to them, his resurrection from the dead is the principal foundation of our faith and hope. Neither was his being an example unto us indispensably necessary; for God hath given us other examples to the same purpose, which he obligeth us to conform ourselves unto, James v. 10, 11. Whereas, therefore, all acknowledge that Christ was the Son of God, and there must be some peculiar reason why the Son of God should die a shameful and painful death, this cannot be assigned by them by whom the indispensable necessity of punishing is denied.

Others say it was needful the Lord Christ should suffer, for the declaration of the righteousness of God, with his hatred of and severity against sin. So indeed the Scripture says, but it says so on the suppositions before laid down and proved. How they can say so, with any congruity unto or consistency with reason, by whom these are denied, I cannot understand; for if there be no such justice in God as necessarily requires that sin be punished, how can it be exalted or manifested in the punishment of it? If the punishment of sin

be a mere free act of the will of God, which he may exert or the contrary, the pleasure of his will is manifested indeed therein, but how his justice is made known I see not. Suppose, as the men of this persuasion do, that it was easy with God to pardon the sins of men freely, without any satisfaction or compensation; that there was nothing in his nature which required of him to do otherwise; that had he done so, he had done it without the least disadvantage unto his own glory,—that is, he had acted therein as became his holiness and righteousness, as he is the supreme governor over all;on these suppositions, I say, who can give a reasonable account why he should cast all our sins on his Son, and punish them all in his person, according as if justice had required him so to do? To say that all this was done for the satisfaction of that justice which required no such thing to be done, is not satisfactory.

8. From what hath been discoursed, both the original and necessity of the priesthood of Christ are evidently demonstrated. There was no respect in the designation of it unto the state of innocency. Upon the supposition and consideration of the fall, the entrance of sin, and the ruin of mankind thereby, there were personal transactions in the holy Trinity with respect unto their recovery, as there had been before in their creation. Herein the Son undertook to be our deliverer, in and by the assumption of our nature, wherein alone it could be wrought, into personal union with himself; because, for this end, the justice and holiness of God required that the penalty due and threatened unto sin should be undergone and suffered. This the Son willingly undertook to do in that nature which he assumed to himself. And because the things themselves to be suffered were not only or so much indeed considered as his will and obedience in suffering,-being an instance of obedience, in compliance with the will and law of God, outbalancing the disobedience of the first, and all our sins in opposition thereunto,-therefore was he, in all his sufferings, to offer himself up freely to the will of God; which offering up of himself was his sacrifice: to which end he was called, anointed, ordained of God a high priest; for this office consisteth in a power, right, and faculty, given him of God to offer up himself in sacrifice, in, by, and under his suffering of the penalty due to sin, so as thereby to make expiation of sin and reconciliation for sinners, as we shall prove in our next discourse.

SECT. 1.] TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST, ETC. 139

EXERCITATION XXXI.

THE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

1. The nature of the priesthood of Christ, why proposed to consideration-The opinions of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ; consequents thereof. 2. Christ an high priest properly so called-Arguments in the confirmation thereof proposed and vindicated—Heb. v. 1, vii. 11-16, explained to that purpose. 3. God the immediate object of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, proved from the typical priesthood and the use of sacrifices. 4. Further confirmed from the nature of all the offices of Christ; 5. From the nature of sacerdotal duties and acts. 6. Some particular testimonies pleaded to the same purpose-The conclusion. 7. The call of Christ unto his priestly office. 8. His inauguration and actual susception of it. 9. Things considerable in the priest's offering sacrifices of old. 10. Their accomplishment in the Lord Christ discharging his priestly office. 11. The truth thereof further explained and confirmed. 12. Testimonies of the Scripture to that purpose urged, explained, vindicated-Eph. v. 2; 13. Heb. v. 6, 7; 14. Heb. i. 3, vindicated. 15. Heb. ix. 12, vindicated. 16. Christ once offered, and that when he bare our sins. 17. The necessity of suffering unto sacrifice, Heb. ix. 25, 26, vii. 27, x. 11, 12.

1. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ is the true and only high priest of the church hath been before declared, and it is in words acknowledged by all in some sense or other. The general nature also of that office hath been fully manifested, from what we have discoursed concerning its original, with the ends thereof, and his designation thereunto. Without the utter overthrow of those foundations in the first place, all the attempts of men against the true and proper nature of this office as vested in him are weak and impotent. The sacrifice that he offered as a priest, the nature, use, and end thereof, must be considered apart afterwards, in its proper place. The qualifications of his person, with the love, care, and grace, which he exerciseth in the discharge of this office, must all be distinctly spoken unto, as they are represented unto us by the apostle in the Epistle itself. Wherefore there would be no necessity of handling the nature of this office here apart, were it not for the opposition that is made unto it, and that depravation of the doctrine of the gospel concerning it which some have attempted; for whereas the principal design of the Socinians in these things is to overthrow the sacrifice that he offered as a priest, they lay the foundation of their attempt in an opposition to the office itself. It is therefore principally with respect unto them that I have here proposed the nature of that office unto consideration; and I shall be more conversant in its vindication than in its declaration, which most Christians are acquainted withal. And I shall proceed in this method herein:-First, I shall declare what are in general their conceptions about this office; in opposition where

unto the truth declared in the Scripture shall be taught and vindicated. Secondly, I shall more particularly declare their opinions as to the several concernments of it, and consider as well their explanation of their own sense, with their confirmation of it, as their opposition and exceptions unto the faith of the church of God.

In the first place, they grant that the Lord Christ is our high priest,—that is, that he is so called in the Scripture; but that he is so really they deny. For this name, they say, is ascribed unto him not properly or directly, to denote what he is or doth, but by reason of some kind of allusion that there is between what he doth for us and what was done by the priests of old amongst the Jews, or under the old testament. He is therefore, in their judgment, improperly and metaphorically called a priest, as believers are said to be kings and priests, though after somewhat a more excellent manner; for he is so termed because of the good offices that he doth for the church, and not that he is or ever was a priest indeed. Hereon they say,—

Secondly, That he then entered on this office, or then began to do that work with reference whereunto,--because of its allusion to the work of the priests under the law, he is called a priest, when, upon his ascension into heaven and appearance in the holy place, he received power from God to help, and relieve, and assist the church, in all its occasions. What he did and suffered before in the world, in his death and blood-shedding, was, by virtue of God's decree, a necessary preparation unto his discharge of this office, but belonged not thereunto, nor did he there offer any sacrifice to God. Wherefore they also affirm,

Thirdly, That this priesthood of Christ is indeed of the same nature with his kingly office, both of them consisting in a power, ability, authority, and readiness, to do good unto the church. Only herein there seems some difference between them, that as a king he is able to help and save us, but as a priest he is willing and ready so to do. Fourthly, That the object of the acts of the priesthood of Christ is firstly and principally man, yea, it is only so, none of them having God for their object, no more than the acts of his kingly power have; for it is his care of the church, his love towards it, with the supply of his grace and mercy which from God he bestows upon it, on the account whereof he is said to be a priest, and his so doing is called the exercise of his priesthood.

This in general is the substance of what they affirm and teach concerning this office of Christ, as we shall more particularly manifest and evince in the ensuing Exercitation. Now, if these things are so, I confess all our exposition of this Epistle, at least the principal parts of it, must fall to the ground, as being built on the sandy foundation of many false suppositions. And not only so, but the faith of the