properly so called, as we have proved before. There might have been a dedication of any thing in our power to God as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and bounty. But sacrifices by blood had all respect to sin, as the nature of them doth declare. Wherefore God appointing priests to offer sacrifice for sin, and therein to minister to him, he must be the first object of their actings as such.

Sacrifices by blood to be offered by these priests, and by them only, God appointed of various kinds, with respect unto various occasions, of bulls, goats, sheep, fowls, whose nature and differences I have explained in our former Exercitations, Exercit. xxiv. The principal end of all these sacrifices was to make atonement for sin. This is so express

in their institution, as it is all one to deny that there were any sacrifices appointed of God, as to deny that they were appoint. ed to make atonement. See Lev. i. 4. v. 5, 6. vi. 7. xvi. 6. 34. &c. Now the nature, use and end of atonement, was to avert the anger of God due to sin, and so to pacify him that the sinner might be pardoned. This is the import of the word, and this was the end of those sacrifices whereby atonement was made. The word is sometimes used where no sacrifice was applied, but is never used in any other sense than that declared. So Moses spake unto the people upon their making of the calf; "Ye have sinned a great sin, and now I will go up unto the Lord, peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin," Exod. xxxii. 30. He hoped that he should by his interposition turn away the wrath of God, and obtain pardon for them, which he calls making an atonement, because of its respect unto the great future sacrifice, by virtue whereof alone we may prevail with God on such occasions, Lev. v. 5, 6. as in many other places this is appropriated unto sacrifices; "When a man is guilty in any of these things, he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for the sins which he hath sinned, and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin." So also v. 17, 18. chap. vi. vii. &c. The sin committed was against the Lord; the guilt contracted was confessed to the Lord; the sacrifice or offering was brought unto the Lord; the atonement was made by the priest before the Lord; all which give it the nature before described, and admit of no other. In some instances the sins committed were to be confessed over the head of the sacrifice wherewith the atonement was to be made, which rendered the whole action more pregnant with representation. A person guilty of sin, convicted in his own conscience, condemned by the sentence of the law, by God's allowance and appointment brought a clean beast assigned in general for that use, and bringing it to the altar confessed over it his sin and

guilt, laying them legally upon it, so delivering it up unto the hand of the priest, by whom it was slain, and the blood poured out, as suffering under the guilt laid upon it, wherein, with some other ensuing acts, it was offered to God to make an atonement for the sin committed and confessed. Thus was blood given unto the people to make atonement for their souls, because the life of the beast was in the blood, which was destroyed in the shedding thereof, Lev. xvii. 11.

Certainly no man can ever arrive unto so much confidence as to question whether the actings of the priests in these sacrifices whereby atonement was made, did not in the first place respect God himself; nor indeed do I know that it is by any positively and directly denied. For the sense we plead for, depends not on the use of any one single word, or the signification of it in these or other places, but upon the whole nature and express ends of these institutions. And herein all mankind are agreed, namely, that the divine power was the immediate object of sacerdotal actings; that they were done with God in the behalf of men, and not actings towards men on the behalf of God.

By all these terms and expressions doth our apostle describe the sacerdotal actings of Christ. For having declared him to be an high priest, he affirms that he offered a sacrifice to God; a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sin; as also that therein God made all our sins to meet upon him, which he bare in his own body on the tree. The question now is, what is intended thereby. Our adversaries say, it is the merciful and powerful actings of Christ towards us, giving out help, assistance, grace and mercy from God to us, so delivering us from all evil, the whole punishment due to sin and eternal death. But why are these things called his offering of himself unto God a sacrifice to make reconciliation for sin ? They say it is because of an allusion and similitude that is between what he doth so for us, and what was done by the priests of old in their sacrifices. But it is plain from what hath been declared concerning the sacerdotal actings of the priests of old in their sacrifices, that there is no allusion nor similitude between these things, nor can they assign wherein it should consist. Their actings were immediately towards God on our behalf, his are towards us on God's behalf; their's were to make atonement for sin, his to testify love and mercy to sinners; their's by shedding of blood, wherein was life, his in power and glory. Wherefore, I say, if we have any instruction given us in these things, if the office of the priesthood, or any duties of it, any sacrifices offered by the priests, were instituted to typify, prefigure and represent Jesus Christ as the great high priest of the church, it cannot be but that his sacerdotal actings do first and immediately respect God himself, which shall now be farther confirmed.

§ 4. There are, (as is out of controversy) three offices which the Lord Christ as the mediator and surety of the new covenant beareth and exerciseth towards the church; namely, those of king, prophet and priest. And these, as they are distinctly assigned unto him, so they are distinct among themselves, and are names of divers things, as really, so in the common notions and sense of mankind. And in these offices, where there is an affinity between them, or any seeming coincidence in their powers, duties and acts, the kingly and prophetical more nearly coincide with each other, than either of them do with the sacerdotal, as shall afterwards be more fully evinced. For the nature of these two offices requireth that the object of their exercise be men; as in general it doth so, so in particular in those of Christ. He acts in them in the name of God, and for God towards men. For although a king be the name of one who is invested with power absolute and supreme, yet is it so, only with respect to them towards and over whom he is a king. As denoting an infinite, absolute, independent power, of necessity it belongs to God alone essentially considered. This office in Christ is considered as delegated by the Father, and exercised in his name; The head of every man is Christ, but the head of Christ is God. He anoints him king on his holy hill of Sion, Psal. ii. And he rules in the name and majesty of his God, Mic. v. 2. Wherefore the whole exercise of the power and duty of this office is from God, and for God towards men. In his name he rules his subjects and subdueth his enemies. None can fancy God to be the object of any of the acts of this office.

It is so in like manner with his prophetical office. God raised him up from among his brethren to be the prophet of his church, to reveal his will, and by him he spake to us. See Exposit. on Heb. i. 1. His whole work as a prophet is to reveal the will of God, and therein to teach and instruct us. Men therefore are the immediate object of the powers, duties, and acts of this office.

And that which we farther observe from hence is this, that there is no one thing that the Lord Christ acts immediately towards the church, but that it belongs unto, and proceeds from one or the other of these powers or offices. If any one be otherwise minded, let him prove the contrary by instances if he be able. The Scripture affordeth none to that purpose. It followeth, therefore, that God is the object of the actings of Christ in his priestly office. For if he be not so, then 1st, There is no room nor place in his whole mediation for any such office, seeing all he performs towards us belongs unto the other. And therefore those by whom this is denied, do upon the matter at length contend, that indeed he hath no such office. And if this

be so, 2d, it doth not belong unto Christ as mediator to deal with God in any of the concerns of his people. For he must do so as a priest or not at all. And then we have no advocate with the Father, which is utterly abhorrent from the common faith of Christianity. And this absurd supposition shall be afterwards removed by express testimonies to the contrary. Take away this fundamental principle, that Christ as mediator deals with God for us, and you overthrow the faith of all Christians. 3d, This would render the whole instruction intended for the church in the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, useless and impertinent, nothing of the like nature being signified thereby. For that, as we have proved, openly respected God in the first place. And on this supposition the accommodation of it unto the priesthood of Christ by our apostle would be altogether vain. 4th, It is contrary to the common notion of the nature of the priesthood amongst mankind; for none ever yet owned such an office in things religious, who did not apprehend the use of it to be in doing the things with God that were to be done on the behalf of men. And hereby would, as was observed, the faith and consolation of all believers, which are resolved into what the Lord Christ hath done, and doth for them with God, be utterly overthrown.

§ 5. Secondly, The same truth is undeniably evinced from the nature of sacerdotal acts and duties. These are, as it is stated by common consent, those two of oblation and intercession. And both these are expressly ascribed unto the Lord Jesus Christ as he is an high priest, and nothing else immediately as he is so. The actual help and aid which he gives us, is the fruit and effect of these sacerdotal actings. The sole inquiry therefore in this matter is, what or who is the immediate object of oblation and intercession. Is this God or man? Did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice unto God or unto us? Doth he intercede with God for us, or with us only? A man would suppose that the absurdity of these imaginations, so expressly contrary to the Scripture and the common sense of mankind, should even shame our adversaries from the defence of them. But they are not so obtuse, or so barren in their invention, as to want evasions at any time. Quid si manifesto tenentur ? anguilla sicut elabentur. They therefore tell us, it is true, if you take oblation and intercession in their proper sense, then God and none other, must be their immediate object. But as they are ascribed unto Christ they are used only metaphorically, and do indeed denote such actions of his towards the church, as have some allusion unto oblation and intercession properly so called. But I say, 1st, There was never such a metaphor heard of before, that one thing should be called by the name of another, between which there is no peculiar similitude, as there is none

between offering unto God, and giving grace unto men. 2d, Who hath given them this authority to turn what they please into metaphors, by which means they may, when they have a mind to it, make an allegory, and consequently a fable of the whole Scripture? It is expressly affirmed that the Lord Christ is a high priest; nothing is in the notion of that office taken properly, that is unworthy of him, no more than in those of king and prophet. No intimation is given us directly or indirectly that this office is ascribed to him metaphorically. As such he is said to make oblation and intercession to God; the things wherein the exercise of the priestly office doth consist. What confidence is it now to deny, that he doth these things properly and immediately with God as an High Priest, by an arbitrary introduction of a metaphor to which the Scripture giveth not the least countenance !

§ 6. We might moreover plead the use and end of the sacrifice which he offered as a high priest, which was to make expiation of sin and atonement for it. But because we differ with our adversaries about the sense of these expressions also, I shall not make use of them as the medium of an argument, until the precise signification of them be evinced and determined, which shall be done (God willing) in our consideration of the nature of the sacrifice itself. Wherefore I shall close this head of our disputation with some express testimonies confirming the truth in hand. To this purpose speaks our apostle, Chap. viii. 3. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." The things which the high priest had of old to offer as gifts and sacrifices, they offered unto God. This I presume is unquestionable: for God commanded them that all their gifts and sacrifices should be offered unto him upon his altar consecrated for that purpose. To have done otherwise had been the highest idolatry. But Christ, if he be an high priest, must, saith the apostle, of necessity have somewhat to offer, as they did, and after the same manner; that is, unto God. If this he did not, there is nothing of reason or sense in the apostle's inference. For what necessity can there be, that because the high priests of old did offer sacrifices to God, that then, if Jesus Christ be an high priest, he must do something of another kind? They have nothing to say upon these instances but to confess the words, and deny the thing; and then tell us that they agree to the words but differ about their interpretation, the interpretation they suggest being a direct denial of the thing itself, whereof more afterwards. To the same purpose speaks our apostle, chap. v. 11. which place hath been before vindicated, and is so fully in the ensuing exposition, whereunto the reader is referred. And this consideration discovereth much of the ge