the value and efficacy of his sacrifice to the church, according to the covenant between Father and Son before described.

What hath been pleaded, is sufficient to our present purpose, as to the declaration of the nature of the priesthood of Christ, his entrance upon it, and discharge of it. But there being another opinion concerning it, universally opposite in all particulars to the truth declared and vindicated, we must, for the security of the faith of the church, call it, with the ways, means, and artifices wherewith it is endeavoured to be supported, to an account, which shall be done in the ensuing Exercitations.

EXERCITATION XXXII.

1. The opinion of the Socinians about the priesthood of Christ distinctly stated in eight particulars. § 2. Expressed by themselves. § 3. The faith of the church of God, in opposition thereto. §4. Vindication of the whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ from the perversion of it, and opposition made unto it, by Crellius. Its agreement and disagree. ment with his kingly office and power. §5. How the priestly office of Christ is mentioned by the other writers of the New Testament, and why principally handled in this Epistle to the Hebrews. § 6. Intercession, no act of Christ's kingly power. Rom. viii. 34. vindicated. The mutual respect between the offices of Christ, with regard to the same general end. § 7. 1 John ii. 2. vindicated. Testimonies of the Old and New Testament omitted. Confidence of the Socinians in pretending to own the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. § 8. The priesthood of Christ is not comprehended by the holy writers in his kingly office. Attempts to prove it, vain. The nature of the expiation of sins vindicated, Heb. iv. 16. 9. The words of the Psalmist, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," how and in what sense applied by the apostles, with respect to the office of Christ. § 10. Vanity of Crellius in assigning differences between the kingly and priestly offices of Christ. § 11. The dif ferences assigned by him, examined. 12. Real difference and distinction between these offices, proved. §13. The dignity and honour of Christ exposed, by denying his real priesthood. § 14. The boldness of Smalcius in censuring the divine writers. His reason why they ascribed the priestly office to Christ.

$1.

§ 1. THE opinion of the Socinians concerning the priesthood of Christ, was expressed in general in our preceding discourse. But for the clearer apprehension and confutation of it, it is necessary that it be more particularly declared in the most important parts of it; as also that its contrariety to the faith of the church may be the more plainly demonstrated. And the sum of what they pretend to apprehend and believe herein, may be reduced to the ensuing heads.

1. That the Lord Christ was not, nor is a high priest, properly so called; but only metaphorically, by reason of some allusion between what he doth for the church, and what was done by the high priest under the law for that people.' And here, if they please, they may rest, as having in design utterly overthrown or rejected this office of Christ. But further to mani fest their intentions, they add;

2. That he was not at all, in any sense, a high priest whilst he was in the earth, or before his ascension into heaven.' And this because he did not any of those things on the earth, on the account whereof he is called a high priest, in an allusion to the high priest under the law. Hence it follows, that in his death he offered no sacrifice to God, nor made any expiation of our sins thereby, which also that he did not, they expressly con

tend.

3. That therefore he became a high priest when he entered into heaven, and presented himself alive unto God.' Not that then he received any new office which he had not before, but only that then he had power to do those things, from the doing whereof he is metaphorically denominated a priest. Wherefore they say,

4. That it is in heaven that he makes atonement, and doth expiate our sins, which is called his offering himself unto God an expiatory oblation or sacrifice, which, as it consisted not in his suffering, death and blood-shedding, so had it no virtue or efficacy from thence, but only as it was a condition pre-required thereunto.'

5. This expiation of our sins consists principally in two things, 1. Our deliverance from the punishment due unto them, initially in this world by pardon, and completely at the last day, when we shall be saved from the wrath to come. 2. In our deliverance from the power of sin by faith in the doctrine he taught, and conformity unto his example that we should not serve it in this world.' And,

6. Hence it follows, that believers are the first proper objects of the discharge of the duties of this office, or of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ.' For they consist in the help, aid, relief and deliverance from our spiritual enemies which we have by him; his gracious and merciful will of relieving us, being that on the account whereof he is called a high priest, and wherein that office doth consist. Wherefore,

7. This priestly office of Christ is upon the matter the same with his kingly office;' or it is the exerting and exercise of his kingly power with love, care and compassion, so called in the Epistle to the Hebrews, out of an allusion to what was done by the high priests of old.

S.Whereas his intercession doth belong to this office of his, and is expressly assigned to him as a high priest, it is nothing but a note, evidence or expression, to teach us, that the power which the Lord Christ exerciseth and putteth forth mercifully for our relief, he receiveth originally from God, as if he had prayed to him for it."

§2. I have so included and expressed the apprehensions of these men, concerning the priesthood of Christ in these posi

tions, as that I am persuaded that no one who is ingenuous amongst them will except against any particular in the account. But that none may reflect in their thoughts about it, I shall repeat it in the words of one of their principal writers. To this purpose speaks Volkelius, De vera Relig. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 144. Jam ut de pontificio Christi munere explicemus; primo loco animadvertendum nobis est, illud ab ejusdem officio regio, si in rem ipsam mentem intendas non multum differre. Cum divinus Spiritus figurato hoc analogicoque dicendi genere, quo pacto Christus regni sui functionem administret, ante oculos nostros constituere potissimum voluerit, nobisque ostendere illum non solum salutem nostram procurare posse, sed etiam nos juvare velle, et porro id omnino facere inque co totum esse ut peccata nostra penitus expiet; h. e. tum ab ipsis peccatis, tum vero præcipue ab eorum reatu ac pæna nos liberet. Again, p. 146. Ut hoc sacerdotis officio rite præponeretur Christus, non satis erat eum in homines esse misericordem, nisi insuper tanta illius esset potestas, quanta ad homines miseriis oppressos divinissima ope sublevandos, pestemque aternam ab illorum capitibus propulsandum opus est; cumque omnis ad hanc rem in calo terraque potestas requiratur, consequens est Christum antequam in cælum ascenderet, tantumque rerum omnium dominatum consequeretur, summum sacerdotem nostrum nondum perfectum fuisse. So he, and much more to the same purpose.

In like manner, Catechis. Racovian. de Munere Christi Sacerdotali. Quest. 1. Munus sacerdotale in eo situm est, quod quemadmodum pro regio munere potest nobis in omnibus nostris necessitatibus subvenire; ita pro munere sacerdotali vult ac porro subvenit. Atque hæc illius subveniendi seu opis afferendæ ratio, sacrificium ejus appel

latur.

Quare hæc ejus afferendæ ratio sacrificium vocatur ? vocatur ita figurato loquendi modo, &c.

Quid porro est peccatorum expiatio? Est a panis quæ peccata tum temporaria, tum æternæ comitantur, et ab ipsis etiam peccatis ne eis serviamus, liberatio.

Cur id sacrificium Christi in calis peragitur? Ideo quod tale tabernaculum requireret, &c.

Quid? Annon erat sacerdos antequam in calos ascenderet et præsertim cruci affixus penderet? Non erat.

To the same purpose the reader may see, Socin. de Christa Servat. pag. 2. cap. 15. Ostorod. Institut. Relig. Christian. cap. 37. Smalcius de Divinitate Jesu Christi, cap. 23. Woolzogen. Compend. Relig. Christian. $51. p. 11. Brenius in Heb. iv. 16. et cap. viii. 4.

§ 3. But the faith of the church of God stands up in direct opposition to all these imaginations. For it asserteth, 1. That our Lord Jesus Christ was, and is truly and properly, the high

priest of the church, and that all others vested with that office under the law, were only types and representatives of him. And the description which the apostle gives of a high priest, properly so called, is accommodated and appropriated by himself unto him, Heb. v. 1-3. as also all the acts, duties or offices of the priesthood, are accordingly ascribed unto him, ch. vii. 26, 27. ch. x. 6, 7. ch. ix. 24. 1 John ii. 21. 2. That he was perfectly and completely a high priest whilst he was on the earth, although he did not perfectly and completely discharge all the duties of that office in this world, seeing he lives for ever to make intercession for us. 3. That he offered himself an expiatory sacrifice to God in his death and blood-shedding, and was not made a priest upon his entrance into heaven, there to offer himself to God, where only the nature of his bloody sacrifice was represented. 4. That the expiation of our sins consisteth principally in the charging of the punishment due unto them upon the Lord Christ, who took them on himself, and was made a sin-offering for them, that we may be freed from them, and from all the evil which follows them by the sentence of the law. And therefore, 5. God is the first proper object of all the sacerdotal actings of Christ; for to him he offered himself, and with him he made atonement for sin. And thereon, 6. This office of Christ is distinct from his kingly office, and not in any of its proper acts or adjuncts coincident therewithal: all which assertions have been before declared and proved, and shall now be further vindicated.

§ 4. He who is supposed, and that not unjustly, to have amongst our adversaries handled those things with most diligence and subtilty, is Crellius. I shall therefore examine what he on set purpose disputes on this subject, and that not by referring the substance of his discourses to the distinct heads before mentioned, but by taking the whole of it as disposed in his own method and words, and that with a design to give a specimen of those artifices, diversions, ambiguous expressions, and equivocations, which he perpetually maketh use of in this cause and controversy. And where he seems to be defective, I shall call in Smalcius, and it may be some others of them, to his assistance. And I shall only transcribe his words in Latin, without adding any translation of them, as supposing that those who are competently able to judge of these things, are not wholly ignorant of that language, and that others may find enough for their satisfaction in our Discourses, so far as they are concerned.

This controversy he expressly engageth in, Respon. ad Grotium, cap. 10. Partic. 56. pag. 543. 1. Pontificiam Christi dignitatem a prophetica et regia distinctam agnoscimus, quanquam non pari modo distinctam. 2. Arctius enim cum regia dignitare cohe