on the truth of what he avers, depends all the opposition they make to the real sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. Hence therefore it is evident, what is the true state of the controversy between these men and us, about the priesthood of Christ. It is not indeed about the nature of that office, nor about the time and place of its exercise, though they needlessly compel us to treat about them also. But the sole question is, whether Christ have any such office or not. For if this be all they grant, which this man asserts, as indeed it is, namely, "that the Lord Christ, upon the account of some actings of his, which are no one of them properly or peculiarly sacerdotal, is only called an high priest figuratively, by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, then indeed he neither hath, nor ever had any such office at all. And this is the true state of our controversy with them, and with all by whom the satisfaction of Christ is denied, namely, whether Christ be the high priest of the church or not. And herein the Holy Ghost himself must answer for us and our profession.

This then is the substance of what they intend. The power, love, and care which the Lord Christ exerciseth in heaven towards his church, makes him to be figuratively called our high priest, and in the same manner to be said to offer himself to God. But whence then comes it to pass, that whereas, according to the notion and understanding that is given us in Scripture, of the nature of priest and sacrifice, suited to the apprehension of all mankind about them, and which they answer or they are nothing, there is no similitude or likeness between them and what Christ was and did, that they are expressed by these terms which are apt to lead unto thoughts of things quite of another kind, than, as it seems, are intended? Why this, saith Smalcius, was ex nimio figurate loquendi studio, out of an excessive desire in the holy writers to speak figuratively; an account which neither any wise man will, nor good man ought to be satisfied with. And yet, according to Smalcius, they much fail in their design. For whereas no wise man doth ever use figurative expressions, unless he judge them necessary to set off the things he intends to express, and to strengthen the apprehension of them, it has, if we may believe this author, unhappily fallen out otherwise with the writers of the New Testament in this matter. For instead of heightening or enlarging the things which they intended, by all their figurative expressions they do but lessen or diminish them. For so he informs us; Hoc tum ob alias causas, tum ob hanc etiam hic primum annotare voluimus, ut sciamus in istis figurate loquendi modis, quantumvis fortasse cuipiam videri possit, Christo summam in eis præstantiam tribui; tamen minus ei tribui quam res est. No man certainly could ever have steered a more unhappy course. For no doubt they de

signed to express the excellency of Christ, and the usefulness of his mediation, in these things unto the church. But in the pursuit of it, they wholly omit those plain and proper expressions whereby they might have fully declared it, to the comfort of the church and the establishment of our faith; and betake themselves absolutely unto such figurative expressions, as whereby the dignity of Christ is diminished, and less is ascribed unto him than is due. Certainly men have been in the use of making very bold with the Scriptures and their own consciences, who can satisfy themselves with such imaginations.

But yet when all is done, all this, as hath been manifested before, will not serve the turn, nor disprove our assertion, that the Lord Christ was a priest whilst on the earth; for all the things which they thus ascribe to him, were then discharged by him. Wherefore we shall further consider what direct opposition they make hereunto.

§ 11. It is no matter at all whom we fix upon to call to an account herein. Their wits are barren in a peculiar manner on this subject, so that they all say the same things one after another, without any considerable variation. The reader, if he please, may satisfy himself herein by consulting Socinus, Volkelius, Ostorodus, Smalcius, Moscorovius, Crellius, and Schlictingius, in the places before cited. I shall therefore confine myself to him who hath last appeared in the defence of this cause, and who seems to have put the newest gloss upon it. This is Lud. Woolzogen, in his Compend. Relig. Christianæ, Sect. 51. whose words ensue.

Præterea etiam hoc nobis paucis attingendum est, quod sacerdotale Christi munus non bene intelligant illi qui statuunt, Christum sacrificium expiatorium pro peccatis nostris in cruce peregisse et absolvisse. Nam in veteri fædere, cujus (1) sacrificia fuere typi sacrificii Christi, non fuit factum sacrificium (2) expiatorium in mactatione victime seu pecudis, sed tantum fuit præparatio quædam ad sacrificium. Verum in eo (3) consistebat sacrificium, quando Pontifex Maximus cum sanguine ingrediebatur in Sanctum Sanctorum, atque (4) eum Deo offerebat et sacrificabat. Sacrificare enim proprie non est (5) mactare, sed offerre et Deo sacrare.

Answ. 1. It is acknowledged, that the sacrifices under the Old Testament were types of the sacrifice of Christ, that is, all of them were so which were expiatory, or appointed to make atonement. Although therefore these men are wary, yet they stand in such an unstable and slippery place, as that they often reel and betray themselves. For if all expiatory sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, most of them being perfect and complete without carrying any of their blood into the sanctuary, that of Christ must be so before his entrance into heaven. 2. For what he affirms of the expiatory sacrifice, that is the anni

versary sacrifice on the day of expiation, that it consisted not in the slaying of the sacrifice, which was only a certain preparation thereunto, is either sophistical or false. It is sophistical, if by mactatio pecudis he intends only the single act of slaying the sacrifice; for so it is granted that was not the entire sacrifice, but only a part of it; the oblation of it on the altar was also required to its perfection. But it is false if he intend thereby all that was done in the offering of the beast, namely its adduction to the altar, its mactation, the effusion of its blood, the sprinkling thereof, the laying of the offering on the altar, the consumption of it by fire, all which belonged thereto. All these things, even all that preceded the entrance of the high priest into the holy place, are distinguished from what was done afterwards, and are to be considered under that head which he calls, the slaying of the victim. But then his assertion is false, for the sacrifice consisted therein, as we have proved. 3. That the expiatory sacrifice did not consist in the entrance and appearance of the high priest in the holy place, with the blood of the beast offered, is manifest from hence; because he was commanded to offer the beast in sacrifice before his entrance into the sanctuary, which was a consequent of the sacrifice itself, and represented the effects of it. 4. That the high priest sacrificed the blood unto God, as he affirms, in the sanctuary, is an assertion that hath no countenance given to it in the Scripture, nor hath it so from any common notion concerning the nature of sacrifices; and the atonement that is said to be made for the holy place by the sprinkling of the blood towards the mercyseat, was effected by the sacrifice as offered before, whereof that ceremony was a sign and token. 5. That to sacrifice and to slay are the same in the original, so as that both those actions, that is, sacred and common slaying, are expressed oft-times by the same word, I have before demonstrated. But withal I grant, that to a complete sacrifice, the ensuing oblation on the altar was also required. Hence was the sacrifice offered and consecrated to God.

But he endeavours to confirm his assertion with some testimonies of our apostle. Et hoc est quod ait author Epistola ad Hebræos (1) In secundum tabernaculum (id est in sanctissimum sacrarium) semel quotannis solus pontifex, non absque sanguine ingreditur, quem offert pro seipso et pro populi ignorantiis, Heb. ix. 7. quibus verbis elucet Pontificem Maximum tum demum sacrificasse, et obtulisse, quando sanguinem intulit in Sanctissimum Sanctuarium, et cum eo coram Deo apparuit. Hac apparitio ac oblatio, demum (2) expiatio et redemptio a peccatis censenda est. Ita igitur in Christo quoque qui et Pontifex Maximus et simul etiam victima esse debuit, mactatio corporis ejus in cruce nihil aliud quam præparatio fuit ad verum sacrificium. Sacrificium autem ipsum peractum est tum, cum in Sans

tuarium Celeste ingressus est cum proprio sanguine suo, ibique Deo seipsum tanquam victimam obtulit et exhibuit, necnon tanquam æternus Pontifex pro ncbis apud Deum intercedit, nostram expiationem procurat.

Answ. 1. I understand not the force of the proof from this testimony, to the purpose of our author. The high priest did enter into the holy place with the blood of the sacrifice. What will thence ensue? Had it been common blood before, and now first consecrated unto God, something might be collected thence in compliance with his design. But it was the blood of the sacrifice, which was dedicated and offered unto God before; the blood of the sacrifice that was slain, which was only carried into the most holy place and sprinkled there, as the representation of its virtue and efficacy. In like manner, Jesus Christ the Lamb of God that was slain and sacrificed for us, after he had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unto God, procuring thereby redemption for us in his blood, entered into heaven, there in the presence of God to represent the virtue of his oblation, and by his intercession (prefigured not by the offering, but by the sprink. ling of blood) to make application thereof unto us. 2. Redemption did in no sense follow the appearance of the high priest in the most holy place typically, nor the entrance of the Lord Christ into heaven really; but it is constantly assigned to his death and blood-shedding, which invincibly proves that therein also his oblation of himself did consist; see 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. Expiation may be considered either in respect of impetration or of application. In the first regard, it did not follow, but precede the entrance of the priest into the holy place; for the sacrifice was offered without to make atonement for sin ; and the same atonement was made in sundry sacrifices, the blood of which was never sprinkled in the holy place. In the latter sense alone it may be said to follow it, which we contend not about.

His next testimony is from Heb. ix. 11, 12. the words whereof he only recites, without attempting any improvement or application of them. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."

Had he attempted any proof from these words, he would have found himself at a loss where to have fixed the argument. Wherefore he contents himself with the bare sound of the words, supposing that may seem to favour his pretension. For it is plain from this text, 1. That Christ entered into heaven as our high priest, and not that he might become such; which is suf

ficient to scatter all his imaginations about this office of his. 2. That he entered into heaven by his own blood, which was shed and poured out in his sacrifice before that entrance; for really he carried no blood with him, as the high priest did of old, but only was accompanied with the efficacy and virtue of that which was shed before. 3. He is said to have obtained eternal redemption before his entrance into heaven, that being expressed as past upon his entrance, which invincibly proves, that his sacrifice was antecedent thereto. "

His last testimony is Heb. viii. 4. which most of them make use of as their shield and buckler in this cause. "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." But the plain design and intention of the apostle allows them no relief from these words. He had proved invincibly, that the Lord Christ was to be a high priest; and had shewed in some instances the nature of that office of his. Here, to confirm what he had so declared, he lays it down by the way of concession, that if there were no other priesthood but that which is earthly and carnal, or which belonged to the Judaical church, he could not have been a priest at all, which yet he had proved that it was necessary he should be. And the reason of this concession he adds, from the possession of that office by the priests of the house of Aaron, in a manner which was peculiar and exclusive, as ver. 5. Hence it unavoidably ensues, that he must have a priesthood of another kind, or different from that of Aaron, which he expressly asserts as his conclusion, ver. 6. A priest he must be: a priest after the order of them who offered gifts according to the law, he could not be; and therefore he had another and therefore a more excellent priesthood.

§ 12. Unto these testimonies, which are commonly pleaded by them all, to deprive the Lord Christ of this office, at least whilst he was on the earth, I shall add the consideration of one with the argument from it, which I find not insisted on by any of them, but Smalcius alone. De Reg. Chr. cap. 23. Hanc Christi oblationem Autor Epistola ad Hebræos volens innuere, et aperte demonstrare cam tum demum esse perfectam cum Christus in cælum ascendit, ait; talem decebat nos habere Pontificem, sanctum, labe carentem, impollutum, segregatum a peccatoribus, et excelsiorem cælis factum; et paulo infra ait; Jesum Christum semetipsum Deo immaculatum obtulisse per spiritum æternum; intelligens per ista epitheta, sancti, labe carentis, impolluti, segregati a peccatoribus, et innocentis, non Christi sanctitatem quoad mores; hac enim semper perfecte Christus fuit præditus, etiam antequam pontifex noster factus est: Sed eam sanctitatem quæ Christi naturam respicit. Qua Christi natura, quamdiu in terris fuit, qui fratribus per omnic