A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the…

If then it be demanded, When God thus sware unto Christ? I answer, we must consider the Decree it self unto this purpose, and the peculiar Revelation or Declaration of it, in which two this Oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal federal Transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the Priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our Exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that Revelation of his mind, in the Force and Efficacy of an Oath in the Psalm by David.

If then it be demanded, When God thus sware unto Christ? I answer, we must consider the Decree it self unto this purpose, and the peculiar Revelation or Declaration of it, in which two this Oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal foederal Transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the Priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our Exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that Revelation of his mind, in the Force and Efficacy of an Oath in the Psalm by David.

It is therefore not only a mistake but an Error of danger in some Expositors, who suppose that this Oath was made unto Christ upon his Ascension into Heaven. For this Apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the [Greek or Hebrew]; of the Socinians in this whole Cause, namely, that the Kingly and Priestly Offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover it supposeth the principal discharge of the Priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this Oath which utterly enervates the Apostles Argument in these words. For if he were made a Priest and discharged his Office without an Oath, as he must be and do on this supposition that the Oath of God was made unto him after his Ascension, (or that his death and Oblation therein belonged not unto his Priestly Office) he had no preeminence herein unto the Aaronical Priests. He might so have a subsequent Privilege of the Confirmation of his Office, but he had none in his Call thereunto.

It is therefore not only a mistake but an Error of danger in some Expositors, who suppose that this Oath was made unto Christ upon his Ascension into Heaven. For this Apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the ; of the Socinians in this whole Cause, namely, that the Kingly and Priestly Offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover it supposeth the principal discharge of the Priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this Oath which utterly enervates the Apostles Argument in these words. For if he were made a Priest and discharged his Office without an Oath, as he must be and do on this supposition that the Oath of God was made unto him after his Ascension, (or that his death and Oblation therein belonged not unto his Priestly Office) he had no preheminence herein unto the Aaronical Priests. He might so have a subsequent Priviledge of the Confirmation of his Office, but he had none in his Call thereunto.