no Heresy in it, if he had. 'I have often had many Discussions with myself (says he) 'whether this Relation of Headship should not import some distinct Office from those of King, Priest, and Prophet, to which Three 'all Divines do reduce the Offices of Christ; 'but I have at last resolved my Thoughts thus; That this Relation of Headship doth import all his Offices; but with that Peculiarness, ' and with that Eminency, as no other Relation in Scripture doth. For we are ruled by Christ, not only as a King, by Laws, exter"nally, but by him internally, as the Members 'by the Head, &c.' So I say, seeing I find Christ's Active Obedience in Scripture, it should make no Hesitation with me, could I refer it to none of his Offices. This Argument therefore is without a Foundation, tho' he builds much upon it. But I depart not from the received Distribution of Christ's Offices. His Active Obedience then belongs to his Priestly Office. Whatsoever he did as Surety, doth so, Heb. vii. 22. But this he did as Surety, which I shall by-and-by endeavour to shew.

As to what this Author saith, pag. 107. That Christ's Righteousness belongs equally 'to him, in respect of all his Offices; and that 'it no more belongs to Christ to fulfil all Righteousness for us, as Priest, than as Prophet or King; it is to me altogether surprising, and certainly is a great Mistake, tending to exclude Christ's Sufferings (which beyond Controversy were undergone by him as a Priest) from having any more part in justifying Sinners, than what he did as Prophet or

King; which I think would gratify a Socinian well. But if his Righteousness as Priest (and that only) be a justifying Righteousness, then (perhaps) Mr. Clark was aware, that his Active Obedience, being confessedly of one entire Piece with his Passive, might be included under his Priestly Office.

He further objecteth, There was no such Thing typified by any thing which the Priests did under the Law. I answer, There must have been a Man come down from Heaven, in the Manner that Christ did, if any had been a perfect Type of Him in all Things. And tho' it did not belong to the Priests under the Law to obey for the People, because of the Imperfection of their Priesthood; yet it might belong to Jesus Christ, who is a Surety of a better Testament: And it must be owned the Priests were very imperfect Types of Christ's Suretyship. And why might not Melchisedech be a Type of Christ herein? He is said to be first King of Righteousness, then King of Peace, and Priest of the most High God, Heb. vii. Doubtless his Righteousness and Peace, whereof he is said to be King, were a Part of the Glory of his Priesthood; for that is the great Thing, with respect to which the Apostle brings him in. And as these are fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ, Righteousness and Peace do not only belong to his Kingly Office, but especially to his Priestly Office; and Peace comes in by Righteousness. Now he is said to be King of them, because there is a Royal Dignity, Sovereignty, and Glory, shed on his Priesthood. Grace reigneth thro'

A

Righteousness, Rom. v. 21. Grace hath erected a Kingdom. So Righteousness and Peace reign by Jesus Christ. His Kingdom is a Kingdom wherein that glorious Righteousness and Peace of his Priesthood are displayed and glorified. So that the Glory of his Kingdoin is, that the Righteousness and Peace of his Priesthood have the chief Rule, and bear Sway therein, Zech. vi. 13. In which Manner, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. may be interpreted to the abundant consolation of Believers.

And what were the High Priest's Garments, wherein he ministred to the Lord? What was the Meaning of this rich and costly Apparel, this glorious Attire? With the Names of the Children of Israel born before God, and Holiness to Jehovah, written upon the Plate of his holy Crown fastened on the Mitre? It was to signify, as far as could be typed out, the Holiness of the Nature and Life of our great HighPriest, who appeared in the Discharge of his Priestly Office, and now appears in the holy Place as perfect Holiness to Jehovah; and that for his Children, bearing their Names upon his Breast-plate (as it were) and upon his Shoulders. Lastly, What was the Meaning of the Law, even the Ten Commandments, being put into the Ark, and there preserved, but to signify its being kept and fulfilled in Jesus Christ?

But, saith Mr. Clarke, There is nothing of it [Christ's Active Obedience] in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle treats largely on the Priesthood of Christ. I answer, If it be not in other Scriptures, it is sufficient.

But I think he is mistaken. I have already spoken of Melchisedech. And in the same

Epistle we read, Tho' he were a Son, yet learned he Obedience by the things he suffered, Heb. v. 8. Obedience there is distinguished from his sufferings. I grant it is not expressly said here, that it was in our stead; yet is there mention, made thereof, even when he is speaking of his Priesthood. And being made perfect, ver. 9. viz. thro' Sufferings (Heb. ii. 10.); for that was the last and finishing Stroke of his Obedience, wherein all terminated, and was perfected. He became the Author of Eternal Salvation; viz. By his entire and whole Obedience, and Sufferings before mentioned. And again, Such an High Priest became us who is holy, harmless, &c. ch. vii. 26. There was no necessity the HighPriest under the Law should be such; but the true and great High-Priest must excel them. Nor doth he say [Such it became Him to be] as pointing out only a Qualification for Sacrificing Work: But [It became us] it was necessary for us, on our Account. I take it, that the Purity and Holiness of Christ, both in Nature and Life, are intended in this lastmentioned text, as belonging to Christ in his Priestly Office. It is strange that Men are so sore afraid of too much Grace, of too much Consolation in Christ Jesus!

Our Author hath yet another Argument; viz. What Christ did or suffered in our stead, we need not.do or suffer: But we are still 'bound to obey the Law; therefore he did not obey in our stead.' He addeth, Be

'cause he underwent the Curse and Penalty of the Law. therefore we need not undergo 'it, but are excused from it: And if we need 'not suffer, because Christ hath suffered in 'our stead; no more need we to obey, because 'Christ hath obeyed in our stead.' Here he subjoins that which is ordinarily the Answer hereto And it is a good Answer; viz. That as, tho' Christ died in our stead, yet we must die; so, tho' he obey'd in our stead, yet we must obey; but not for the same Ends and Purposes as he did.. And we don't suffer to satisfy divine Justice, so neither do we obey to merit Life and Salvation thereby.Now Mr. Clark's Reply to this (for ought I see) don't at all weaken it. For whereas he saith, By Christ's Death true Believers are absolutely freed from suffering any Part of 'the Penalty of the Law; that there Death is quite of another Nature than Christ's Death; 'that tho' Christ's Death-be of the same Nature in a physical Sense, both consisting in a Separation of Soul and Body, yet, in a mo'ral Sense, they are of as different Natures as 'may be.' Is not all this said and supposed in the Answer which he replies to? And is it not hence inferred, that therefore our Obedience may have Place, for a quite different End, altho' Christ has obeyed? Howbeit, he hence concludes, that the Argument still holds good, in regard of Sufferings, that, because Christ suffered, we need not suffer. I deny it, if he speak of Suffering and Death absolutely and materially: But if he mean otherwise (as indeed he doth), that we need not suffer