Selected quad for the lemma: order_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A58800
|
The Christian life. Part II wherein that fundamental principle of Christian duty, the doctrine of our Saviours mediation, is explained and proved, volume II / by John Scott ...
|
Scott, John, 1639-1695.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing S2053; ESTC R15914
|
386,391
|
678
|
the Kingly which later remained in Moses after he by the command of God had devolved the Priesthood which was originally in himself upon his Brother Aaron and so according to divine institution the Priesthood was to continue in the Family of Aaron separate from the Regal Power till the coming of our Saviour who reunited those Offices in himself and became a Royal Priest after the ancient Order of Melchisedeck For upon the separation of these Offices none could be a Priest of the Aaronical Order but such as were descended from the Family of Aaron and therefore Christ could not be a Priest of that Order because he descended from the Family of Iudah and being of the Royal Lineage he resumed the Priestly Office from the House of Aaron and joyned it to the Kingly Office again with which it was originally united by which he abrogated the Priesthood of the Aaronical Order and in its room restored the ancient Melchisedecan or Royal Priesthood And hence the Author to the Hebrews observes that Christ pertaineth to another Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Iudah of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priesthood Heb. 7.13 14. and therefore by being a Priest of a different Tribe from that to which the Aaronical Order was confined he disannulled that Order and erected another in the room of it viz. the ancient Order of Melchisedeck which was before the Aaronical Hence S. Ambrose in Loc. quomodo translatum est Sacerdotium Ex tribu ad tribum de Sacerdotali ad Regalem ut eadem ipsa sit Regalis Sacerdotalis intuere mysterium primum fuit Regale Sacerdotium Melchisedâ—ch secundum consequentiam hujus sermonis secundum etiam fuit Sacerdotale in Aaron tertium in Christo fuit iterum Regale i. e. How was the Priesthood translated Why from one Tribe to another viz. from the Sacerdotal to the Regal that so it might be both Regal and Sacerdotal and this is the Mystery the first Priesthood of Melchisedeck was Regal the second was Sacerdotal in Aaron the third was Regal again in Christ. For that which distinguished the Melchisedecan from the Aaronical Priesthood was not as some imagine the difference of their Sacrifice viz. that Melchisedeck sacrificed only inanimate things whereas Aaron sacrificed Animals also for that Melchisedeck sacrificed there is no doubt because he was Priest of the most high God but that he sacrificed inanimate things only such as Bread and Wine there is not the least intimation in Scripture only it is said that when he met Abraham he brought forth Bread and Wine Gen. 14.18 that is to refresh Abraham's Soldiers after their Battel with Chedorlaomer as the manner was in those Countries Vide Deut. 23.4 and Iudg. 8.15 and 6.15 And what is all this to his Sacrificing But that he sacrificed Animate as well as Inanimate things is evident not only because animal Sacrifices were generally used before the institution of the Aaronical Priesthood and it is very improbable that he who was so eminently the Priest of the most High God should never offer the accustomed Sacrifices but also because Christ's Sacrifice was an animate one who was a Priest after Melchisedeck's Order and not of the Order of Aaron Heb. 7.11 so that if the difference between these two Orders consisted in this difference of their Sacrifice Christ must be rather a Priest of the Aaronick than the Melchisedecan Order And how could the Acts of the Priesthood of Aaron be Typical of our Saviour's which is Melchisedecan as the Scripture all along makes them if they were of a different nature from those of Melchisedeck How could Aaron's bloudy Sacrifices be Typical of our Saviour's Priesthood which was after the Order of Melchisedeck if Melchisedeck's Priesthood admitted no bloudy Sacrifice As to the Acts of their Priesthood therefore for any thing that appears to the contrary these two Orders were the same but in this they apparently differed that whereas the Regal Power was united to Melchisedeck's Priesthood it was wholly separated from Aaron's who in all probability was the first High Priest in the World that was not a King as well as a Priest. The Priestly acts therefore of these two different Orders being the same we shall better understand the nature of our Saviour's Priesthood though it be of the Order of Melchisedeck by the account we have of the Aaronical than by that of the Melchisedecan Order because the former is far more distinct and particular than the later For of the Acts and Functions of Melchisedeck's Priesthood there is very little mention in Scripture whereas those of Aaron's are described at large in all their particular Rites and Circumstances The Priestly Office therefore in general consists in officiating for sinful men with God in order to the reconciling of God to them and obtaining for them his Favour and Benediction To which end there are two Offices necessary to be performed First to offer Sacrifice for them and thereby to make some fitting reparation to God for their past sins and provocations Secondly To present that Sacrifice to God and in the Vertue and Merit of it to interceed with God in their behalf in order to the Restoring them to his Grace and Favour And accordingly we read of the Iewish High Priest who of all their other Priests was the most perfect Type and Representative of Christ in his Priestly Office and this more especially in Celebrating the Mysteries of the great day of Expiation that on this day he was appointed to bring the Beast to the door of the Tabernacle which was set apart to die for the Sins of the People and to kill it there with his own hands by which action he did as the Peoples Representative offer a life to God as a reparation for those manifold sins by which they had justly forfeited their own lives to him after which he was to take the Bloud of it and present it before the Lord in the Holy of Holies sprinkling it seven times with his finger upon and before the Mercy-Seat by which action he interceded with God to accept that Bloud in lieu of the forfeited lives of the People and accordingly the whole performance is called making an Atonement for the Children of Israel for all their sins once a year Lev. 16 34. But for the fuller explication of the Priestly Office it is necessary we should briefly explain these two essential Acts of it viz. of sacrificing and presenting the Sacrifice to God by way of Intercession for the People As for the first of these the Apostle tells us that every High Priest is ordained to offer gifts and Sacrifices Heb. 8.3 And that he is ordained for men in things pertaining unto God that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 It is true indeed to sacrifice in a strict sence i. e. to kill the Sacrifice seems not to have been
Christianity which are not so clearly revealed but that the most honest minds may be mistaken about them but then these are such as are far remote from the necessary and fundamental Articles upon which our Salvation depends all which are so clearly and distinctly revealed that there is nothing but a perverse Will that is either prejudiced against them by some sinful affection or through a profane disregard of God and Religion utterly unconcerned about them can hinder men from apprehending them and if when the divine Light shines so clearly round about them men will be so obstinate as to shut their eyes against it it is at their own eternal peril and they are as justly accountable for their ignorance as if they had sinned against the clearest knowledge For this saith our Saviour is the condemnation of the World that light is come into the World and men love darkness more than light If therefore through any wicked prejudice against the truth or through a profane neglect to enquire after it we continue ignorant of it this will be no excuse at all for our sinning against it but we shall be as certainly condemned for our affecting Ignorance and loving darkness more than light as if we had sinned against the clearest light and conviction For what a monstrous instance is it of stupidity and impiety together to shut our eyes against that light which is of such infinite moment to us and which the Son of God thought worth his while to come down from Heaven to reveal to us what is this but to tell him to his face that if he had pleased he might have spared his pains and not have come so far on such an impertinent Errand as is not worth a man's while to listen to O prodigious supineness and stupidity that men who are so inquisitive about the little affairs of this life as that when they receive but a Letter in which they imagine any of their worldly interests are concerned they cannot forbear one moment breaking it open and perusing the Contents of it should yet receive a Message from the God of Heaven by his own Son in which their everlasting happiness or misery is concerned and take no notice of it but let it lie by them day after day without ever enquiring into the Contents of it or taking the least care and pains to inform themselves about it Good God! what reverence have these wretched Creatures for thee or what regard for themselves that can thus receive thy Messages and with them their own Eternal Fate with the same unconcern and indifferency as they would the most impertinent Tales of Bedlam Wherefore as we regard either God or our own Souls let us from henceforth be perswaded seriously to attend to this great and momentous Revelation of our Saviour and throughly to inform our minds with its Doctrines and Precepts for which end let us avoid as much as in us lies busying and entertaining our thoughts with nice and curious Speculations or remote and disputable Opinions and betake our selves to the study of things upon which our Eternal life and happiness depends viz. of the Duties which the Gospel exacts and requires of us and of the Motives by which it presses and inforces them which when once we have digested into a clear and distinct Scheme of practical knowledge that will be a standing light to our Wills and Affections by which we shall always see our way before us and be secured from wandering into dangerous errors and at length safely conducted to eternal light and happiness SECT III. Of Christ's Priestly Office. IN treating of which great and momentous Argument I shall endeavour first to shew what the ancient Priesthood was and in what Acts it consisted Secondly To prove that the ancient Priesthood in its proper Acts was a Type and Figure of the Priesthood of our Saviour Thirdly To explain the Priesthood and Priestly Acts of our Saviour corresponding to that ancient Priesthood in which they were prefigured First What the ancient Priesthood was and in what Acts it consisted In the first Ages of the World it is evident that in matters which concerned himself alone every man was his own Priest. For thus in sacrificing to God upon their own particular accounts both Cain and Abel officiated for themselves but in Family-Sacrifices the Father of the Family was the Priest as is evident by Noah and Iob Gen. 8.22 Iob. 1.5 And when Families were multiplied into Tribes and greater Societies the Prince of each Society was also the Supreme Priest of it and hence before Aaron was consecrated Moses who was the Prince of Israel officiated also as the Priest in that solemn Sacrifice by which the Covenant with Israel was confirmed Exod. 24.6 And long before Moses Melchisedeck King of Salem was also Priest of the most High God Gen. 14.18 And it is evident that originally Kings were the High-Priests of their Countries For so Aristotle observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Rule and Sacrifice were Offices conjoyned in the same Person Polit. l. 3. So also Virgil Aen. 3. Rex Anius Rex idem hominum Phoebique Sacerdos i. e. Anius in the same Person was King of Men and Priest of Phoebus upon which Servius hath this Note Sane majorum haec erat consuetudo ut Rex esset etiam Sacerdos vel Pontifex it was a Custom among the Ancients that the King should be also Priest or High-Priest Which Custom was continued for a long while in Aegypt and from thence was derived to the Greeks and from them to the Romans for so Plut. Quaest. Rom. p. 279. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Of old Kings performed the most and greatest parts of the Sacred Rites and together with the Priests sacrificed the Victims but upon their exceeding their due bounds and taking upon them to domineer proudly and unjustly many of the Greeks took from them all their Civil Power and only left them their Authority to sacrifice to the Gods but the Romans as he goes on utterly rejecting their Kings appointed anothâ—r to succeed them in the High Priesthood whom they wholly debarred from intermedling with secular Affairs Dionysius Halicarn speaking of the power of Kings expresly tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. That they had the Government of all Sacrifices and Sacred Rites and whatsoever was to be done to the holy Gods was done by them And therefore the reason why Melchisedeck here is more particularly taken notice of under the Character of a King and Priest was not because there were no other Kings so but he but perhaps because all other Kings that were Cotemporary with him were revolted to Idolatry so that he only remained a Priest of the most High God. And in being a King and Priest together he was a Type of our Saviour who was a Priest not after the Order of Aaron but after the Order of Melchisedeck Heb. 5.10 For in Aaron the Priestly Office was separated from