Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	holy_a	priesthood_n	31	3	9.3456	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59809	A defence and continuation of the discourse concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our union and communion with Him with a particular respect to the doctrine of the Church of England, and the charge of socinianism and pelagianism / by the same author.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1675 (1675)	Wing S3281; ESTC R4375	236,106	546

his Death and cite Heb. ix 12. to that purpose which I am sure no Socinian can own The proper notion of an Advocate or Intercessor is one who offers up our Prayers and Petitions and procures an Answer which was represented by the High Priests offering Incense in the Holy of Holies which signified the Prayers of the Congregation and therefore we find that while the Priest offered Incense in the Holy Place the People used to pray without that their Prayers might ascend together with the Incense Luke i. 10. So that Christs Intercession is founded on the virtue of his Sacrifice but it is not the representation of his Meritorius Sacrifice as Mr. Ferguson imagines but the Recommendation of our Prayers and Persons to God by virtue of his meritorious Sacrifice and therefore the Intercession of Christ is described by his being able to save all those to the uttermost who come unto God by him Heb. vii 25. And since we have such an High Priest who intercedes for us and is sensible of our Infirmities we are exhorted to come boldly to the Throne of Grace that we may obtain mercy and find Grace to help in time of need Heb. iv 16. The death of Christ upon the Cross was a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood to make Atonement for Sin by the Sacrifice of himself but when he ascended into Heaven and had presented his Blood in the holy Place he was no longer then a Priest after the Order of Aaron but after the Order of Melchisedeck as the Apostle proves at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews his work is not to offer himself any more in Sacrifice for he hath by one offering for ever perfected them who are sanctified but his Office is to bless the People in Gods Name as Melchisedeck blessed Abraham God hath sent his Son to bless us in turning of us from our iniquities He hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins So that now in virtue of his Death and Sacrifice Christ doth not intercede like some meaner Advocates by Prayers and Intreaties having all power both in Heaven and Earth committed to him but doth by his Power and Authority which he received from God as the Purchase and Reward of his Death and Sufferings bestow all those Blessings on us which we want and pray for in his Name For this Reason I asserted That Christs Intercession is the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins not to make atonement for them which he did by his Death and Sacrifice as Mr. Ferguson would pervert my words but to apply this Expiation and Atonement to us in the actual forgiveness of our sins And this is so plain and evident a Truth that Mr. Ferguson himself cannot deny it though he quarrels with me for asserting it being willing it seems to find fault if he knew how His Words are these Indeed his Intercession as upon the one hand it is founded on his Oblation and Sacrifice being nothing but the representation of his meritorious Passion and a continuation of his sacerdotal Function which as I observed before is a mistaken notion of Christs Intercession as confounding his Sacrifice with his Intercession which is indeed founded on his Sacrifice and receives all its virtue and efficacy from it but yet is of a distinct nature and consideration so on the other hand it hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some Acts of his Kingly Office For these Offices being all vested in the same Person and having all the same general End and belonging all to the Work of Mediation it cannot otherwise be but that their Acts must have a mutual respect to each other but yet the Priestly Office to which Intercession appertains is formally distinct from his Kingly In which words he acknowledges that Christs Intercession as it respects us and consists in bestowing those Blessings on us which we want and which he hath purchased is an Act of Kingly Power and Authority which is as much as I asserted or ever intended to assert And as for what he adds that still his Priestly Office is formally distinguish'd from his Kingly I readily grant it so far as it respects his Sacrifice and Expiation which is an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood but as it respects his Intercession which is an Act of his Melchisedechian Priesthood his Kingly and Priestly Offices are so closely united that he is rather to be considered as a Regal Priest than as either Priest or King because it is the exercise of that Power and Authority which is founded on his Sacrifice And by this time I hope every ordinary Reader will see what a vain and malicious attempt it was for this Author to endeavour to represent me as a Socinian of which Candor and Ingenuity I shall give several other Instances hereafter and that he might have spared his pains in proving that the Kingly and Priestly Offices in Christ are distinct and that Christ is not a Metaphorical but a proper Priest But to return to our Looking-Glass-Maker he quarrels still that I say That Christs preaching the Gospel was the exercise of his Regal Power in publishing his Laws Our Author can understand that to enact Laws is an exercise of a Regal Power but not to publish them which would make every inferior Herald a King This is a very wise Objection which shews his Skill in Laws and Government It is not indeed necessary for a King to publish his Laws in his own Person this was a peculiar condescension of our Saviour to come in Person to us to publish his Laws but yet the publication of Laws must be made by the same Authority which Enacts them for publication is of the very essence of a Law and by wiser men than our Author put into the definition of it and therefore is the proper exercise of Regal Power I doubt my Readers will be quite tired with my taking notice of such impertinent Cavils and therefore I shall add but one or two more which are very remarkable and dismiss our Author for the present I commend the Wisdom and Honesty of our Church for teaching her Children a Religion without Art or Subtilty Our Author disproves this by shewing that no Child can understand the Church-Catechism without great art and subtilty he cannot understand what it is to be a Member of Christ without understanding the various significations of the Name Christ and whether he must be made a Member of the Church or of the Person of Christ and then he must know what this Church is which requires great subtilty c. Now by the same argument I can prove that a Child cannot understand the easiest thing in Nature without unridling all the Mysteries of Philosophy as for instance at this rate a Child cannot understand what Bread is unless he first understand what Matter is and then he

effect the Salvation of Mankind But this troubles him too that I say they are the different administrations of this Mediatory Kingdom for says our Author Is an Office an Administration No by no means therefore I say they ought not to be look'd on as different Offices but as different Administrations of the same Supreme Office which comprehends them all But then he would fain know what kind of Totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet Priest and King Why Sir just such a Totum as consists of three parts His mistake which occasions this wondering humour is that he thought a Mediatory Kingdom and the Office of a King to be of equal extent and therefore that the Office of a King could not be contained under a Mediatory Kingdom as a part is contained in the whole Whereas every Puny in Divinity knows that a Mediatory Kingdom is of a larger extent than the meer Office of a King and contains the Prophetical and Priestly Offices under it Which is like another of his mistakes that because as he observes from Doctor Iackson and Doctor Hammond Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office by his Sufferings and Death therefore he was not consecrated to his Mediatory Office as I assert by being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with Power as if Christ might not have a general Consecration to his Mediatory Office and a particular Consecration to the particular parts of it though Doctor Hammond only says That the Death of Christ was his Consecration to his Melchisedechi an Priesthood but was it self an act of his Aaronical Priesthood But I see the most innocent expressions shall not escape the severest Censures when we have to deal with men who can understand nothing which is out of their common road of phrases Mr. Ferguson draws up a very severe Charge against me upon this score as if I confounded the Offices of Christ and denied his Priesthood and his Expiation and Sacrifice and yet would have the World believe that if he had not been in a very good humour he could have handled me after another rate Truly what his humour is I cannot tell but I am sure that either his Understanding or his Conscience is not very good He takes a great deal of laudable pains to prove that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King though they be not separated in their Subject the Person of Christ yet they are in their Natures Objects Acts and Effects distinguished one from the other But do I any where deny this Because I say that they are several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom does it hence follow that they are not several Parts and different Administrations That they do not differ in their Natures Acts and Effects As for instance the Paternal Government consists of very different parts as the Education of Children providing Food and Raiment for them correcting them when they do amiss and incouraging their Vertues placing them with prudent Masters and Governours and providing for their future subsistence and the like Now will any man say that there is no difference between feeding Children and correcting them and sending them to School and putting them out to serve an apprentiship to a Trade whereby they may get their Livings because all these do equally belong to a Fathers care and are contained under the general notion of Paternal Government Thus when we say that Christ is a Saviour or which is the same thing a Mediatory King and that the Offices of Prophet Priest and King are but the several Parts and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom that is they are all essential to the Office of a Saviour and included in the notion of it and necessary to the same end the Salvation of Mankind can any man hence reasonably infer that they do not differ in their particular Natures Acts Objects and Effects But Mr. Ferguson proves that I make no difference between Christs Priestly and Kingly Office because I say that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship But I say no such thing My words are these When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King Now can our Author perceive no difference between these two expressions that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship and When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he acted like a King The first signifies that the nature of his Sacrifice and Oblation consists in the exercise of a Regal Power which indeed confounds his Priestly and Kingly Offices the other only signifies that at the very same time and in that very Act when he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin he exercised the Power of a King too that is as I explained it that his Life was not taken from him by external force and power but his laying down his Life was an Act of Authority He had power to lay it down and he had power to take it again And I wonder Mr. Ferguson should think it any derogation from our Saviours Power and Authority that he adds This Command have I received from my Father for I would fain know of him what Authority and Power that is which Christ as Mediator has not received from his Father and does not exercise by his Command and in subordination to him A Mediatory Kingdom is a received and subordinate Power it is Obedience with respect to God and Authority and Power with respect to Men. And had this Author been so honest as to have considered what I immediately subjoyn he could not have suspected me of Socinianizing or of confounding the Priestly and Kingly Office viz. Herein Christ differs from other Kings that he laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own Blood that he purchas'd and redeem'd his Subjects with the Sacrifice of himself Such another mistake one may observe in our Author when he makes me to say That the Sacerdotal Office is only a part and different Administration of the Regal Whereas I never thought that the Sacerdotal Office was part of the Regal Office but that the Priestly and Kingly and Prophetical Offices were several Parts and different Administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom And when I affirm that they were several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom I had not so little wit in the same breath to affirm that they were parts of each other which is a down-right contradiction but I see our Author with all his Learning cannot distinguish between a Kingly Office and a Mediatory Kingdom In the like manner he arraigns me for a Socinian for asserting that Intercession signifies the Administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins Though either our Author is very ignorant or cannot but know that what I there assert has no affinity with the Socinian Notion for I expresly attribute the Virtue and Efficacy of his Intercession to the Expiation and Sacrifice of