Exposition of Hebrews 6-10

VER. XXVII. XXVIII.

The words used in this context have been opened in several places before. And in one thing only is there any material Difference among the Translators of them. And this is in those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For the Syriac reads them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; rendering the Article in the masculine Gender, who was after the Law; and so doth the Vulgar Latin also, qui post legem est, referring unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the antecedent, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Erasmus renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by supra legem, above the Law. But others think and that rightly, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an Accusative case, is never to be rendered by supra, or above.

As these verses contain other instances of the Preeminence of our High Priest above those of the order of Aaron: so all those mentioned in the former of them, do depend directly on, and flow from the qualifications and endowments of his Person expressed in that foregoing. For whereas he is such an one as is there described, Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, Separate from sinners, and made higher than the Heavens, for such an one alone became us, he was above and freed from all those things and services which the Levitical Priests were obliged unto, for want of these Qualifications. For all the things ascribed ver. 27. unto them and denied concerning him, were all effects of the weakness and imperfection of their Persons and their services, which he as unto his Person was absolutely exempt and free from, so that he had no need to do as they did. And this being declared, the whole matter, with the fundamental Reason of all the differences insisted on, is summarily expressed, ver. 28. as we shall see in the Exposition of the words.

VER. XXVII.

The words are a Negation as they respect our High Priest, and include an Affirmation with respect unto the Priests of the Law, both in sundry instances. And the design of them is to exclude all those Imperfections from him, which they were subject unto. And we may observe in the words.

1. The manner of the negation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He needeth not; it is not necessary for him. The things expressed were not such as those Priests might do, or omit as they saw occasion; but they were necessarily obliged unto them. And the necessity the Apostle intends, was not only that which arose from God's Institution, who appointed them to offer daily, first for themselves and then for the People, but that also which arose from their own state and condition, and from the nature of the sacrifices that they offered. For themselves being weak, infirm, and sinful, and their offerings being only of earthly things that could never perfectly expiate sin, these things were necessary for them, and so God had ordained. Wherefore there are three Grounds or Reasons of the necessity here ascribed unto these Priests.

1. God had appointed them so to do. This comes first to view although there be another Reason even of this Appointment. And God taught hereby both them and the Church, their utter incapacity to effect the work committed unto them, at once, whereon they were to multiply their Oblations.

2. The Nature of the Offerings and Sacrifices which they offered did make the manner of it here expressed, necessary unto them. For they were such as could not attain the end of expiating sin: but only could represent that which did so; and therefore the Repetition of them was needful, because their principal use was to be instructive only. Things that are really efficient themselves, may at once produce and perfect their effects: But those which are instructive only must be reiterated.

3. This Necessity arose from their own state before God, and the state of the People. For they themselves often sinned, and having no other to offer for them, it was necessary that they should often offer for themselves. And so it was with the People also. They sinned still, and still must be offered for. After one offering, their sins again increased on them, and made another necessary.

From all these considerations our High Priest was absolutely exempted; and that on a twofold Account, (1.) Of his Person, which being Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, and Separate from sinners, he needed not offer for himself. (2.) Of his Offering, which being at once perfectly expiatory of the sins of the People, needed not to be repeated. And on these Grounds God also had appointed that he should offer himself only once for all.

2. The second thing in these words is the Declaration of them that lay under this necessity which our High Priest was not liable unto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , As the High Priests, that is, those High Priests of the Law concerning whom he had treated. So we well render the words, as those High Priests, in like manner as they were, or as they had need. For the Apostle with respect unto the Levitical Priesthood carrieth on the comparison between Christ and them, especially in the instance of the High Priests and the Discharge of their Office; For they were the Head of the Priesthood, and the Glory of the Church of Israel. Howbeit all other priests employed in the holy Offerings and Sacrifices of the People, are included herein. And it is apparent that if the Priesthood of Christ doth so far excel that Office in the High Priests of the Old Testament, it must needs excel it in those of a subordinate Order or Degree. All these priests had need to offer in the manner here expressed.

3. A threefold Difference is intimated between our High Priest and them. As,

1. In the frequency of their Offerings, they were to offer daily, which also includes the order of their Offering, first for themselves, and then for the People: Whereas he offered once only.

2. It is supposed they offered the sacrifices appointed by the Law which were of brute Creatures only, whence their insufficiency and frequent Repetition did proceed; as declared, Chap. 10. 1, 2, 3. He offered himself.

3. In the cause of their offering; they offered for their own sins, but he had none of his own to offer for.

Now all the things here ascribed unto the Levitical priests, are weaknesses and imperfections in their Office. And hereby the main position of the Apostle, and which was destructive of the whole Fabric of Mosaical worship, namely, that the Law whereby they were constituted made nothing perfect, was abundantly confirmed. For the greatest effect of that Law was the constitution of this Priesthood. And what perfection can be expected by such a Priesthood where the Priests were obliged continually to offer for their own sins? No sooner was one offering past, but they were providing matter, making another necessary. And so it was with respect unto the sins of the People. And what perfection could be comprised in an everlasting Rotation of sins and sacrifices? Is it not manifest that this Priesthood and these sacrifices, could never of themselves expiate sin, nor make perfect them that came to God by them? Their instructive use was excellent: They both directed Faith to look unto the great future Priest and Sacrifice, and established it, in that they were Pledges given of God in Assurance thereof. The eye of them all was a continual guidance unto the Church, to look unto him who alone was to make Atonement for sin, and bring in Everlasting Righteousness. Howbeit they were of that nature, and were so ordained of God, that they should never give perfect ease and Peace unto them that were exercised in them. Some relief they found in them, but complete Peace they did not afford. Nor can anything do so, that is often to be repeated. The frequent Repetitions of the sacrifices of the mass in the Church of Rome, doth sufficiently manifest that there is no solid abiding Peace with God in that Church. For this is not to be attained by anything that must be frequently repeated. So our Apostle affirms expressly, that if the Sacrifices of the Law could have made perfect them that came to God by them, or given them perfect Peace with God, they would have ceased to have been offered. And so it would be with the sacrifice of the Mass. Only by the one offering of Christ, they are perfected as to Peace with God, for whom he offered. And it gave great evidence unto their instructive efficacy, that in themselves they were so weak, so imperfect, and ineffectual.

It was therefore unbelief heightened unto Obstinacy, which caused the Hebrews to refuse this High Priest and Sacrifice when exhibited of God, whereas before they could never attain unto Peace firm and stable. But Love of carnal Worship, and adherence unto self Righteousness, are inseparable companions.

Obs. God requireth our Faith and Obedience in and unto nothing, but what is as absolutely needful for us, so highly reasonable unto the minds of them that are enlightened. Such was this Priesthood of Christ, now proposed unto the Faith of the Church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.

4. There is in the words the Time and Season of the performance of what is here ascribed unto these High Priests, as necessary for them. They were to do it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Daily: that is, so often as occasion required according unto the Law. For there is no Reason to confine the Apostles intention unto the annual expiatory sacrifice only; as though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. 10. 1. Daily as much as Yearly. It is true that in that sacrifice the High Priest offered first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the People. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used doth not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Daily sacrifice alone that is intended; though that be included also. For that juge sacrificium had respect unto the sins of the whole Church both Priests and People. As we are obliged to pray for the pardon of sin every day, by virtue of that sacrifice which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , new and living in its efficacy continually, and as occasion did require. And so there was an Obligation on the Priest to offer for himself a sin-offering, as often as he sinned according to the sins of the People, Levite. 4. 3. If the Priest that is anointed (that is, the High Priest) do sin according unto the sin of the People, then let him bring for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord for a sin offering. And unto this institution the Apostle here hath respect.

5. What they were thus obliged unto, is declared; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; to offer sacrifices for sins. All Propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices are intended. But possibly a principal regard is had unto the great Anniversary sacrifice in the feast of Expiation, Levite. 16. For although the Apostle mentions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sacrifices in the plural number, and that was but one; yet because of the Repetition of it, it being offered year by year continually, as he speaks, Chap. 10. 1. it may be signified hereby. And those sacrifices were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And in answer unto them our Lord Jesus Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin. And this is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for sin only, without the mention of sacrifice. Rom. 8. 3 For because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both the sin and the sacrifice for it, as the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in one conjugation to sin, and in another to expiate sin, the sacrifices itself is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For sin.

6. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; first and then. First for his own sins, and then for those of the People. Either the whole Discharge of the office of the High Priests may be intended in this order, or that which was peculiar unto the Feast of Expiation. For he was in general to take care in the first place about offering for his own sins according to the Law, Levite. 4 For if that were not done in due order, if their own legal Guilt were not expiated in its proper season according to the Law, they were no way meet to offer for the sins of the Congregation; yea, they exposed themselves unto the penalty of Excision. And this order was necessary seeing the Law appointed men to be Priests who had infirmities of their own, as is expressed in the next verse. Or the order intended may respect in an especial manner the form and process prescribed in the solemn Anniversary sacrifice at the least of Expiation. Levite. 16. First he was to offer a Sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the People, both on the same day.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for his own sins: And this upon a double Account. First, because he was really a sinner as the rest of the People were. If he do sin according to the sin of the People, Levite. 4. 3. Secondly, That upon the expiation of his own sins in the first place, he might be the more meet to represent him who had no sin. And therefore he was not to offer for himself in the offering that he made for the People, but stood therein as a sinless Person, as our High Priest was really to be.

2. For the sins of the People; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, for the whole congregation of Israel; according to the Law; Levite. 16. 21.

This was the Duty, the order and method of the High Priests of old in their offerings and sacred services. This their weaknesses, Infirmities and Sins, as also the Sacrifices which they offered, did require. All that could be learned from it was, that some more excellent Priest and Sacrifice was to be introduced. For no Perfection, no Consummation in divine Favor, no settled Peace of Conscience could in this way be obtained; all things openly declared that so they could not be. And hence have we an Evidence of what is affirmed, Joh. 1. 17. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. And the Privilege or Advancement of the Church in its Deliverance from those various multiplied obscure means of Instruction, into the glorious light of the way and causes of our Adoption, Justification and Salvation, is inexpressibly great and full of Grace. No longer are we now obliged unto a rigid observance of those things which did not effect what they did represent. An increase in thankfulness, fruitfulness and holiness, cannot but be expected from us.

These are the things that are here denied of our High Priest: He had no need to offer Sacrifice in this way, order, and method. The offering of Sacrifice is not denied, that is, Sacrifice for the sins of the People; yea, it is positively asserted in the next words; but that he offered daily, many sacrifices, or any for himself, or had need so to do, this is denied by the Apostle. That alone which he did, is asserted in the remaining words of the verse; For this he did once when he offered himself.

And two things are in the words; (1) What he did in general; (2) In particular, how he did it.

For the first, it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This he did; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , refers only unto one clause of the Antecedent, namely, offering for the sins of the People. This he did once, when he offered himself; for himself he did not offer.

But contrary unto the sense of the whole Church of God, contrary to the Analogy of Faith, and with no small Danger in the expression, Socinus first affirmed that the Lord Christ offered also for himself or his own sins. And he is followed herein by those of his own Sect, as Schlinctingius on this Place, and so he is also by Grotius and Hammond, which is the Chanel whereby many of his Notions and Conceptions are derived unto us. It is true, that both he and they do acknowledge, that the Lord Christ had no sins of his own properly so called; that is, Transgressions of the Law; but his Infirmities, say some of them, whereby he was exposed unto Death, his sufferings, say others, are called his sins.

But nothing can be more abhorrent from Truth and Piety than this Assertion. For,

1. If this be so, then the Apostle expressly in terms affirms that Christ offered for his own sins, and that distinctly from the sins of the People. And from this Blasphemy we are left to relieve ourselves by an Interpretation that the Scripture nowhere gives countenance unto; namely, that by sins, infirmities or miseries are intended. It is true that Infirmity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth sometimes signify sin, or obnoxiousness unto sin, but sin doth nowhere signify natural infirmities but moral evils always. It is true Christ was made sin, but where it is said so, it is also added, that it was for us; and to take off all Apprehensions of anything in him that might be so called, that he knew no sin. He was made sin for us, when he offered for the sins of the People. And other distinct offering for himself he offered none. And therefore in sundry places where mention is made of his offering himself, it is still observed, that he did no sin, but was as a Lamb without spot and without blemish. Let therefore men put what Interpretation they please on their own words (for they are not the words of the Apostle that Christ offered himself for his own sins) the language is and must be offensive unto every Holy Heart, and hath an open appearance of express contradiction unto many other Testimonies of the Scripture.

2 The sole Reason pretended to give countenance unto this absurd Assertion is, that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This, must answer to the whole preceding proposition which is its Antecedent. Now therein is mention of the Priests offering first for their own sins, then for the sins of the People, and this it is said Christ did, that is, he offered first for his own sins, and then for the People. But to answer the whole Antecedent in both parts of it, it is indispensably necessary that he must, as they did, offer two distinct offerings, one, namely the First, for himself, and the other, or then, for the People. For so did they, so were they obliged to do by the Law, and other offerings for themselves and the People in any other order or method there never was nor could be. But this is expressly contradictory unto what is here affirmed of the Lord Christ and his offering; namely, that he offered himself once only, and if but once, he could not offer first for himself, then for the People; Nor at all for himself and them in the same offering, which the High Priests themselves could not do.

3. This Insinuation not only enervates, but is contradictory unto the principal Design of the Apostle in the verse foregoing and in that which follows. For, ver. 26. He, on purpose describes our High Priest by such Properties and Qualifications as might evidence him to have no need to offer for his own sins, as those other Priests had. For from this consideration that he was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, the Apostle makes this Inference, that he needed not to offer for himself as those High Priests did. But according unto this interpretation, no such thing ensues thereon; but notwithstanding all those Qualifications he had need to offer for his own sins. And, ver. 28. the Difference he puts between him and them is this, that they were men Subject to infirmities, but he is the Son consecrated forever; which apparently exempts him from any necessity of offering for himself. For as is apparent from the Antithesis, he was not subject unto any of those infirmities which made it necessary unto them, to offer for themselves. Wherefore the whole design of the Apostle in these verses is utterly perverted and overthrown by this Interpretation.

4. When those priests offered for their own sins, their sins were of the same nature with the sins of the People. If the Priest that is anointed, shall sin after the manner of the People, Levite. 4. 3. If therefore this be to be repeated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this he did when he offered for his own sins and of the People, sins being only expressed in the first place and understood in the later, sins properly so called must be intended, which is the height of Blasphemy.

5. If the Lord Christ offered for himself or his own Infirmities, then those Infirmities were such as were Obstructions and hindrances unto his offering for others; for that is the only Reason why he should offer for their removal or taking away. But this is so far otherwise as that indeed he was obnoxious unto no Infirmity, but what was necessary that he might be a meet High Priest and Sacrifice for us. For so was everything that is inseparable from human nature; which is utterly destructive of this Figment.

6. This Imagination will admit of no tolerable sense in its Exposition or Application. For how can we conceive that the Lord Christ offered for his own infirmities, that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness unto death? It must be by his sufferings and death; for in and by them he offered himself unto God. But this is absurd and foolish: By his suffering he offered for his sufferings. What he offered for, he took away, as he did the sins of the People. But his own sorrows and sufferings he took not away, but underwent them all.

7. It is contradictory unto the principal Maxim of the Socinians with respect unto the Priesthood of Christ. For they maintain, that his one perfect offering or Expiatory Sacrifice was in Heaven only, and not on the earth. But he could not at his Appearance in the Holy place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all past and finished, himself being exalted in Immortality and Glory.

These things are sufficient to repress the vanity of this Figment. But because there is no small danger in the proposal that hath been made of it, I shall briefly examine what Reasons its Authors and Promoters do produce to give countenance unto it.

Thus proceeds and argues Crellius or Schlictingius on the place. Peccata preprie dicta, id est, divinar am legnm transgressiones, cum in Christo locum non habeant ullum, (1) Necesse est ut in voice peccatorum sit improprietas, significenturque Christi infirmitates & perpessiones, (2) Qua de re jam egimus. cap. 5. ver. 2. 3. (3) Sic vidimus istarum infirmitatum & perpessionum contraria, Sanctitatis & innocentiae nomine paulo ante versu superiore describi; qui duo versiculi mutuo se illustrant: (seipsum offerens.) (4) Docet quando Christus pro se obtulerit, preces nimirum & supplicationes ut cap. 5. ver. 7. vidimus: tunc nempe cum in eo esset, ut seipsum deo offerret, cum sese ad oblationem sui ipsius accingeret, hoc est, cum tanquam victima mactaretur. (5) Oblatio enim Christi sic hoc loco extendenda est ut mortem ipsius tanquam necessarium antecedens, & quoddam veluti initium complectatur. (6) Cum vero hic versiculus ex superiori commate pendeat & inferatur, vel hinc apparet, non agi isthic de moribus, sed de natura, deque felici statu ac conditione nostri Pontificis. Nec enim ideo Christus opus non habet amplius pro se offerre, quod Sanctus sit & inculpatus, ration morum seu actionum suarum, cum semper talis fuerit; sed quod in perpetunm ab omnibus malis & afflictionibus sit liberatus.

I have transcribed his words at large, because what is offered by others unto the same Purpose, is all included in them. But the whole of it will be easily removed. For,

1. The Impropriety of speech pretended, that sins should be put for Infirmities, is that which the use of the Scripture will give no countenance unto. It is only feigned by these men at their pleasure. Let them, if they can, produce any one place, where by sins not moral evils, but natural infirmities are intended. But by feigning Improprieties of speech at our pleasure we may wrest and pervert the Scripture, even also as we please.

2. Of the Infirmities of the Human Nature of Christ, which were necessary that he might be a Sacrifice, and useful unto his being a Priest, we have also treated in the place quoted; chap. 5. 2, 3. Whereunto the Reader is referred.

3. Not the contrary unto these Infirmities, but the contrary unto sin Original and Actual, is intended by Holiness and Innocency in the verse foregoing, as hath been proved in the Exposition of that verse, whereunto the Reader is referred.

4. The Lord Christ offered up prayers and supplications unto God, when he offered himself: not to expiate his own infirmities by his offering, but that he might be carried through and supported in his Oblation which he offered for the sins of the People; and had success therein. See the exposition on chap. 5. 7.

5. He is more kind than ordinary in extending the Oblation of Christ unto his death also. But he recalls his grant, affirming that he did only prepare himself for his offering thereby. And this also casts his whole Exposition into much confusion. Christ offered himself once, saith the Apostle; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , once, and at one time. This I suppose is agreed. Then he offered for himself and his own sins, or not at all. For he offered but once, and at one time; Where then did he thus offer himself and when? In Heaven upon his Ascension, say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? On the earth. Then he offered himself twice? No, by no means, he offered not himself on the Earth; how then did he offer for himself on the earth? He did not indeed offer himself on the Earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the Earth, and therein he offered for himself; that is, he did, and he did not offer himself upon the earth. For they cannot evade by saying that he did it when he offered up prayers on the Earth: For the Apostle says expressly in this place, that what he did, he did it when he offered himself. And it must be by such an offering as answered the offering of the high Priest for himself, which was bloody.

6. The close of his Discourse, whereby he would prove the Truth of his Exposition of the verse foregoing from his Interpretation of this, is absurd; as that which would give countenance, unto an evident falsehood, from what is more evidently so.

Grotius adds little unto what Schlictingius offers in this case. Only he tells us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for those griefs which are commonly the punishment of sin; Rom. 6. 10. But it is a mistake: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in that place, signifies nothing but the Guilt of Sin, which Christ died to expiate and take away. He died once for sin, that is, he suffered once for sin. He says moreover, that profluvium mulierum is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Levite. 12. 8. 15. 13. as also is the leprosy; chap. 14. 13. But herein also he is mistaken; both the one and the other subject unto those defiling Distempers, were appointed to offer a sin-offering for those sins, which those Defilements were tokens of, and the sin of Nature which they proceed from. Again he says, that Christ in his offering was freed from those infirmities and miseries, per mortem acceleratam. But his death was not hasted one moment until all was finished; nor did he offer for the hastening of his Death. And his ensuing words are most ambiguous; Christ offered, pro doloribus istis qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, & quos Christus occasion etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit. If the sorrows intended were not true punishments of sin, they could not be offered for. And what sorrows Christ underwent so far as they were penal, he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the People, and not otherwise. But those which are called his own sins, must be every way distinct from the sins of the People, and have no Relation unto them; as the sins of the High Priests of old had not. Wherefore if by the occasion of the sins of men, he intend, that his Sufferings and Griefs were for the sins of men, then he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the People, when he bare our sins and sorrows, and had no need to offer distinctly for them as his own. And if it were a sorrow that was not for sin, it cannot be called Sin. Christ's sufferings on the occasion of the sins of mankind, is well understood by those who are any way skilled in the Socinian Mysteries.

Hammond says the same. He both (saith he) offered for himself, that is, made expiation as it were (not to deliver himself from sin, for he was never guilty of any) but from the infirmities assumed by him, but especially from death itself; and so is now never likely to die, and to determine his Melchisedecian Priesthood. Ans. (1) To make expiation as it were from the infirmities assumed by him, or to be delivered from them, is hard to be understood. (2) Much more is it, how by death wherein he offered himself, he should make expiation to be delivered from death itself. (3) And it is as hard to say, that Christ offered for himself once by death, that he might die no more; seeing it is appointed unto all men only once to die.

I have digressed thus far to crush this novel Invention, which as it is untrue and alien from the sense of the Apostle, so it hath in the expression of it an ungrateful sound of Impiety. But I expect not so much Sobriety, as that considering the means of its conveyance unto the minds of men at present, it should not be vented again, until what hath been here pleaded in its confutation be answered. At present I shall proceed with the Exposition of the remainder of the words.

How, and what Christ offered for the sins of the People is declared in the words remaining.

1. For the way or manner of it. He did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Once only. This is directly opposed unto the frequency of the legal Sacrifices repeated daily as there was occasion. Those High Priests offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , daily, on all occasions; He 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Once only.

And I cannot but observe by the way that this Assertion of the Apostle is no less absolutely exclusive of the Missatical Sacrifices of the Priests of the Roman Church, than it is of the Levitical Sacrifices of the High Priest of the Church of the Jews. Their Expositors on this place do generally affirm in plea for their Church, that they offer it not to make expiation of sins, but only to represent and make application of the one Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. But in their Mass itself they speak otherwise, and expressly offer it to God a Sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Neither yet do we inquire unto what End they do what they do: and this is all they say, that they offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, that is, himself. And this they do a thousand times more frequently, than the Expiatory Sacrifices were among the Jews. Neither were their Sacrifices offered properly by God's Appointment to make Atonement for Sin by their own virtue and Efficacy; but only to be a Representation and Application of the Sacrifice of Christ to come. Whatever ends they therefore fancy unto themselves, by pretending to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, they contradict the words of the Apostle, and wholly evert the force of his Argument. For if the same sacrifice which the Lord Christ offered be often offered and had need so to be, the whole Argument to prove the excellency of his Priesthood in that he offered himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifices, falls to the ground.

And hence also the Foundation of this fiction is rased. For it is, that the Lord Christ offered himself at the supper the night before he was hetraied, as the Trent Council affirms, Sess. 22. Cap. 1. For if he did so, he offered himself more than once, twice at least; which being a matter of Fact, is to give the Apostle the lie.

What he offered is expressed in the last place, and therein the Reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those Priests did. And this is taken from the excellency of his offering, he offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , himself. And this gives the highest preference of the Priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For, (1.) Those Priests had nothing of their own to offer, but must be furnished with offerings from among the other Creatures. (2.) Though they had the best from them, the blood and fat, yet it was but the blood of Calves, and Sheep, and Goats. And what can this do for the real Expiating of the sins of our souls? See Micah 6. 6, 7, 8. Wherefore when at any time the People were brought under any serious conviction of sin, they could not but apprehend, that none of these sacrifices, however multiplied, could deliver them from their Guilt. But the Lord Christ had something of his own to offer, that which was originally and absolutely his own, not borrowed or taken from anything among the Creatures. And this was himself, a sacrifice able to make Atonement for all the sins of Mankind. And from the words thus expounded we may observe,

1. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great Expiatory sacrifice for the Church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. As the first part of this Assertion declares the insufficiency of the Priests of the Church of the Jews, so doth the latter the vain pretence of the Priests of the Church of Rome. The former the Apostle proves and confirms expressly. For no other high Priest but such a one as was in himself perfectly sinless, did become us, or our state and condition. He that was otherwise could neither have any thing of his own to offer, and must in the first place offer for himself, and this he must be doing day by day. And the latter on many accounts is a vile presumptuous Imagination. For a poor sinful worm of the Earth, to interpose himself between God and Christ, and offer the one in sacrifice unto the other, what an issue is it of Pride and Folly?

2. The Excellency of Christ's Person and Priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical Priesthood was obliged unto. And the due Apprehension hereof is a great guide unto us in the consideration of those Types. For many things we shall meet withal which we cannot see how they had a particular Accomplishment in Christ, nor find out what they did prefigure. But all of them were such that their own infirm state and condition did require. Such was their outward Call and Consecration which they had by the Law, in the sacrifice of beasts, with certain washings and unctions, their sacrificing often, and for themselves, their Succession one to another, their Purifications or legal Pollutions. These and sundry things of like nature were made necessary unto them from their own sins and infirmities, and so had no particular Accomplishment in Christ. However in general all the Ordinances and Institutions about them all, taught the Church thus much, that nothing of that was to be found in the true high Priest wherein they were defective.

3. No Sacrifice could bring us unto God and save the Church to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both Priest and Offering. Such an High Priest became us who offered himself once for all. And we may consider, (1.) That this was one of the greatest effects of infinite divine Wisdom and Grace. His Incarnation wherein he had a body prepared for him for this purpose, his call to his Office by the Oath of the Father and Unction of the Spirit, his sanctifying himself to be a sacrifice, and his offering up himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, are all full of Mysterious Wisdom and Grace. All these wonders of wisdom and love, were necessary unto this great End of bringing us unto God. (2.) Every part of this Transaction, all that belongs unto this sacrifice, is filled up with Perfection, that no more could be required on the part of God, nor is anything wanting to give countenance unto our unbelief. The Person of the Priest and the Offering itself are both the same, both the Son of God. One view of the Glory of this Mystery, how satisfactory is it unto the souls of Believers? (3.) A distinct consideration of the Person of the Priest and of his sacrifice will evidence this Truth unto the Faith of Believers. What could not this Priest prevail for in his Interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause entrusted in any other hand; what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make Atonement for? What sin, or whose sins could it not expiate? Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World.

4. It was burdensome and heavy work to attain relief against sin and settled Peace of Conscience under the old Priesthood, attended with so many weaknesses and infirmities. Herein lies the greatest part of that Yoke which the Apostle Peter affirms that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear, Act. 15. 10. Which the Lord Christ gives us deliverance from, Math. 11. 27, 28, 29, 30.

VER. XXVIII.

The Apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his precedent Discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper Foundation, which all along he hath built and proceeded on. (1.) One Principle there was agreed upon between him and the Hebrews who adhered unto Mosaical Institutions; and this was, that an High Priest over the Church there must be; and without such an one there is no approach unto God. So it was under the Law, and if the same order be not continued, the Church must needs fall under a great disadvantage. To lose the High Priest out of our Religion, is to lose the Sun out of the firmament of the Church. This was a common Principle agreed on between them, whereon the Apostle doth proceed.

(2.) He Grants unto them that the High Priests who officiated in the Tabernacle and the Temple were called and appointed by God unto their Office, in the Law.

(3.) Hereon ensued the main Difference between him and them. They were persuaded and hoped that these Priests should continue forever in the Church without change or Alteration. He contends that there was a time designed wherein they were to be removed, and a Priest of another order to be introduced in their room; which would be so far from being any disadvantage unto the Church, as that the whole safety, glory, and blessedness thereof did depend thereon. And this he proves by many cogent and irrefragable Arguments unto them. As,

1. That before the erection of the Levitical Priesthood by the Law, there was another priest of the High God, who was far greater and more excellent than those Priests, yea, than Abraham himself from whom they derived all their Privileges.

2. Because after the giving of the Law and the setting up of the Levitical Priesthood thereby, God again promiseth to raise up another Priest, in another kind, after another order, after the manner of him who was called unto that office long before the giving of the Law. Wherefore he was prefigured before the Law, and promised after the Law, so that his Introduction could not be prejudiced by the Law.

3. That this High Priest thus promised, neither was to be nor could be, of the same stock, Nature, or Order with the Levitical priests, but one that was not only distinct from them, but really inconsistent with them. He manifests that there was no possibility they should be priests together, or that the Church should be under the conduct of them both.

4. Whereas hereon it may be said, who knows whether this change and Alteration will be to the Advantage of the Church or no, whether it were not better to adhere unto these priests which we have already, than relinquishing them and all Benefits by them, to betake ourselves unto this new High Priest; the Apostle in answer unto this possible Objection, declares in sundry instances the excellency of this other Priest above them. And not only so, but he proves undeniably that by all which those other Priests did perform in divine service, and by all that the Law could effect, whereby they were constituted and made Priests, there was no Access unto God, no Perfection, nor Consummation in peace of Conscience to be obtained. For there were so many defects and weaknesses that accompanied them and their services, as rendered them wholly unable to attain those great Ends. On the other hand he manifesteth and proveth that by this one single High Priest now introduced, and his one sacrifice offered once for all, by reason of the perfection of the one and the other, all those blessed Ends were completely accomplished.

This being the Design of the Apostles Discourse in this Chapter, he giveth us a summary of the whole, and of the principal Grounds which he proceeds upon, with wonderful Brevity in this last verse. For upon an acknowledgement of the different Principles mentioned, he shows us in an elegant Antithesis,

1. The different means of the constitution of these different Priests; on the one hand, the Law; and on the other, the Word of the Oath.

2. The different times of their constitution; the one in the giving of the Law; the other after the Law.

3. The difference of their Persons; those of the first sort were Men, and no more; the other was the Son.

4. The Difference in their state and condition; the former had infirmities, the later is consecrated forever.

5. This also is included in the words, that those of the first sort were many, men that had infirmities; he of the later was one only. And in these things, as we shall briefly see, be the springs of all the Arguments which the Apostle hath used in this case, and a plain Representation is given us of the Truth he contended for.

1. The first Difference is in the constituting Principles of these distinct Offices: That on the part of the Levitical Priesthood was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Law, that is, the ceremonial Law, as we call it; the Law given in Horeb, concerning Religious Rites, the way and manner of the Solemn worship of God in the Tabernacle. It was not the Moral Law, not immediately the commands of the Decalogue, but the especial Law of divine Service and Worship that is intended.

And what doth the Law do? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It appointeth. It did so Morally, God appointed them in and by the Law. And he speaks in the Present Tense. So long as the Law continueth in force and Efficacy it appointeth such Priests. None other are to be looked for in, or expected from the Law. Now a Moral Rule or Institution is sufficient to convey power and Authority of office unto men. So is it under the New Testament. It is the Gospel that makes Ministers, and not the People or any others, who have no power but only to act in Obedience unto the Laws thereof. Hereby those other Priests came so to be.

Hereunto is opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word of the Oath, as the constituting cause of this new Priest and Priesthood. Thus much it had in common with the other way. It was a word as that was also. The Law was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The word spoken by Angels. chap. 2. 2. The word of God, though spoken by them. And a word in this sense is either a mere word of command, or a word of Promise; either of which is sufficient to constitute an office, being Declarations of the Authority of God himself. By this Word was both the Office of the Priesthood of Christ consecrated, and himself called to be a Priest. See the Exposition on chap. 5. ver. 5, 6. But herein especially did this Word excel the Word of the Law, in that it was confirmed by the Oath of God. It was the Word, the Will, the Promise of God declared in and by his Oath. And herein hath it many Advantages above the Law, which was not so. As,

1. An high federal Solemnity. Things confirmed by an Oath are peculiarly Sacred; and are distinguished from all things that are not so; And therefore the Interposition of an Oath was originally (it may be, solely) used in the confirmation of Covenants about things of moment, and wherein several Parties were highly concerned.

2. An Oath declares the immutability of that Counsel whence the matter sworn unto doth proceed. In the giving of the Law, God declared his will, so far as to what he would have the People at present obliged unto. But he did not by any means declare that he had in his unchangeable counsel determined, that the kind of worship, and state of the Church then erected, should continue forever. Yea, he did many ways intimate that he did reserve unto himself the power of altering the whole. But now the Immutability of God's Counsel is declared by his Oath. What was this Oath of God, and how the Lord Christ was made a Priest thereby, hath been before at large declared. The Apostle takes notice of it here only as it was given out in prophecy by David which was but a Solemn Declaration of the Eternal compact between the Father and the Son.

2. The Difference of the Time wherein these Priesthoods were ordained, is included on the one hand and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the Law was given, whereby they were made Priests: the latter was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after the Law, or the giving of it. This, I confess, doth not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the Apostles Design, namely, that this Oath was after the Law. For in another place he expressly argues on the other hand, that what is first in such cases hath the Preeminence; and cannot be disanulled by what doth ensue. Gal. 3. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise of none effect. May it not be as well said that this Oath, which was declared about four hundred years after the giving of the Law, could not disannul it, or make it of none effect? The Objection being not without its difficulty, I shall spend a little time in the full solution of it. I answer therefore, That what followeth after cannot Disanul what went before,

1. If that which is afterwards introduced be consistent with what was before established. For in that case there is no intimation of the Pleasure of God that it should be disanulled. He may add what he will, unto what is already ordained, so it be consistent with it, without prejudicing the first Institution.

2. Especially it cannot do so, if it be inferior unto that which went before, either in Dignity or use and benefit, and so be made subservient unto it.

3. And it must be invalid unto any such Purpose, if it had no other antecedent foundation, that did indeed precede the former Grant: for if it have so, it may rationally be supposed to be farther declared on purpose to supersede it.

Now thus it was with the Law in respect unto the Promise, which (as the Apostle proves) going before it, could not be disanulled by it. For,

1. The Law as it was then ordained of God, was consistent with the Promise; Yea, and given in the pursuit of it; so as that there was no need that any should forsake the Promise to comply with the Will of God in giving the Law.

2. The Law as it was inferior in Dignity and Use unto the Promise, so it was made subordinate and subservient unto it. For the man end of giving the Law, was to guide and direct the Church unto the right use and benefit of the Promise.

3. The Promise had an absolute priority above the Law. There was no Ground or Foundation laid for the Law, no intimation of its future introduction, before the giving of the Promise: And therefore the Promise could not be disannulled by it.

But in the present case all things are otherwise. For,

1. The Priesthood confirmed by an Oath, and introduced after the Law, was utterly inconsistent with the Law and the Priesthood thereof. This the Apostle hath fully proved before. Wherefore of necessity either the Law and the Priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the Oath of God must be of none effect; For what he had sworn unto was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

2. This new Priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient unto the other, so as to leave it a place in the Church. But as it was eminently above it in Dignity and Benefit; so the use of the other was only to be an Introduction unto it, and therefore must cease thereon.

3. This Priesthood had its Reasons, Grounds, Foundation and Representation long before the giving of the Law. For besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first Promise 2000 years before the giving of the Law, it had also a Typical Representation before it in the Priesthood of Melchizedek; and it received only a Declaration and Confirmation in the Account given of the Oath of God after the Law.

Wherefore the direct contrary is here the matter in hand, unto what is spoken unto in that other Argument of the Apostle. And therein the first thing, namely, the Promise was confirmed by an Oath, the latter was not. But here the latter which was after the Law, was confirmed by the Oath of God, which the Law was not. And hereon its being after the Law is a sufficient Evidence of its preeminence above the Law, and all the Institutions of it. For hereby was that introduced which was to supply all the defects and weaknesses of the Law and its Priesthood, and so to disannul them and take them out of the way.

3. The third Difference is, that the Law made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Men to be High Priests; that is, those who were mere men and no more. And therefore notwithstanding the Office and Dignity which they were called and exalted unto, they were all but servants in the House of God, nor could they be any other as the Apostle proves, Chap. 3. 5. In opposition hereunto, the Word of the Oath makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Son an High Priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole House, and whose the House is, as he declares in the same place, ver. 5, 6. And in this word the Apostle openeth the necessity and Dignity of the Priesthood of the New Testament. For it consists in the Dignity of the Person designed unto that Office. This was no other, nor could be other, but the Son, the Eternal Son of God. Filium, nempe Dei, non hominem caeteris parem, nascendi sort, saith Grotius; as though Christ were here called the Son, that is the Son of God, because he was differenced from other Men, in the way and manner of his birth, being born of a Virgin. But this is not the true and formal Reason of this Denomination. Christ is the Son of God by Eternal Generation, and thereon alone doth his Sonship depend. But many ways there were, whereby he was manifested so to be, especially by his miraculous Conception and Nativity, and by his Resurrection from the Dead. Hence with respect unto them he is sometimes called the Son of God; not that he became so thereby, but was only declared so to be. This therefore the Apostle resolves the force of his Argument into, namely, the Dignity of the Person of our High Priest, he was the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his Priesthood doth depend.

4. It is added in the last place that the Law made men Priests, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that had infirmity: subject to infirmities. And these were of two sorts, Moral and Natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their Priesthood. The first were their Sins, hence they were obliged continually to offer sacrifice for their own sins, and that to the very last day of their Lives. The sum and issue of their natural weakness was death itself. This seized on everyone of them, so as to put an Everlasting end unto their sacerdotal Administrations.

But wherefore did the Law make such Priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end unto their Office? The Reason is, because it could neither find any better, nor make them any better whom it found in that condition. The Law must be content with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better.

In opposition hereunto it is said the Word of the Oath made the Son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , consecrated forever. What was the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his Office and wherein it did consist, I have before at large declared. That which the Apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his absolute freedom from the infirmities which those other Priests were obnoxious unto, namely, such Infirmities in the first place as with respect whereunto, sacrifice was to be offered unto God, that is, their own sins. And the Apostle here opposing the Consecration of Christ, unto their having Infirmities, showeth sufficiently that he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infirmities of his own, seeing he is wholly different from them and opposed unto them who had such infirmities. And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the Apostle could not have objected it as the weakness of the Law; that it made Priests which had infirmity; for in that sense, the Word of the Oath should have done so also. But whereas his Exaltation into Heaven for the discharge of the remaining Duties of his Priesthood in his Intercession for the Church, belonged unto the perfection of his Consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural Infirmities which were necessary unto him that he might be a sacrifice. The ensuing Observations offer themselves unto us.

1. There never was, nor never can be anymore than two sorts of Priests in the Church, the one made by the Law, the other by the Oath of God. Wherefore,

2. As the bringing in of the Priesthood of Christ after the Law and the Priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and disannul it; so the bringing in of another Priesthood after his, will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore,

3. Plurality of Priests under the Gospel overthrows the whole Argument of the Apostle in this place, and if we have yet Priests that have infirmities, they are made by the Law, and not by the Gospel.

4. The sum of the Difference between the Law and the Gospel, is issued in the Difference between the Priests of the one and the other state, which is inconceivable.

5. The great Foundation of our Faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our High Priest is the Son of God.

6. The Everlasting continuance of the Lord Christ in his Office, is secured by the Oath of God.

VER. 1.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 caput; vul. Capitulum, Summa; Beza. Caeterum eorum quae diximus haec summa est. Moreover this is the Sum of what we speak. Summatim autem dicendo: to speak briefly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —of all these things; the Head, Chief or Principal of all these things, vul. Super ea quae dicuntur. Rhem. the Sum concerning these things which be said.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Syr. We have an High Priest, he who sitteth; omitting this word, or including it in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, ill.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; vul. magnitudinis; which the Rhemists render by Majesty, and retain Sedis for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Beza. Majestatis illius; or, Throni, virtutis, magnificandi.

VER. 1.

This first Verse contains two things. (1) A Preface unto that Part of the ensuing Discourse which immediately concerns the Priesthood of Christ, unto the end of ver. 5. (2) A Declaration of the first Preeminence of our High Priest, which the Apostle would have us in an especial manner to consider.

The Preface is in these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which may be considered either as unto its Design in general, or as unto the Sense of the words.

I. The Design of the Apostle in this Interlocution, (which is not unusual with him) is to stir up the Hebrews unto a diligent consideration of what he insisted on, and to leave an impression of it on their minds. And this he doth for two Reasons.

1. Least the Length and Difficulty of his preceding Discourse should have any way discomposed their minds, or wearied them in their Attention, so as that they could not well retain the substance of what he pleaded. In such cases it was always usual with them who pleaded important Causes before the wisest Judges, to recapitulate what had been spoken at length before, and to show what hath been evinced by the Arguments they had used in their Plea. To this purpose speaks Quintilian, lib. 6. cap. 1. Perorationis duplex ratio est posita, aut in rebus, aut in affectibus. Rerum repetitio aut congregatio, quae Greece dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a quibusdam Latinorum enumeratio, & memoriam Judicis reficit, & totam simul causam ante oculos ponit; & etiam si per singula minus moverat, turba valet. In hac, quae repetimus quam brevissime dicenda sunt, & (quod Graeco verbo patet) decurrendum per capita. How this whole course is steered by the Apostle in this place, is easy for any one to observe.

2. Because of the Importance of the matter in hand. He is treating of the very Head of all the Differences between the Law and the Gospel, between those who adhered unto Mosaical Institutions, and those who embraced the Faith. Hence he calleth them unto a renewed Attention unto what he delivered. For herein he set Life and Death before them, and was zealous for them, and earnest with them, that they would choose Life, and not die in their Unbelief.

II. The Sense of the words is to be considered. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is Capitulum, Caput, properly the Head of any living Creature. But the most frequent use of it is in a sense metaphorical, as it is here used by the Apostle. And so it hath a double sense and use whereunto it is principally applied, for it hath also other significations; For (1) It is taken for that which is chief and principal in any matter, business or cause. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Isoc. The Head of the whole Business. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Plato, de Legib. lib. 1. The principal thing in Education or Instruction. And so is Caput used among the Latins. Caput est in omni procuratione negotii & muneris publici, ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio. This is the chief or principal thing in the management of all public Affairs, that all suspicion of Covetousness be far away. (2) It is taken for the sum and substance of what hath been spoken or declared, reduced into a short Scheme. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ut summatim dicam, Demosthenes. And so some render these words summatim dicendo. And Isocrates hath an expression directly answering that of the Apostle in this place, ad Nicoc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the sum of what hath been spoken; so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caput, the Head, is used in he Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exod. 30. 12. When thou takest the Head (the Sum) of the Children of Israel: So also Numb. 4. 2. And in this sense is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by our Apostle as some think, Ephes. 1. 10. but it may have another sense in that place.

In whether of these two significations it is here used by our Apostle, will best appear, from the consideration of what it is applied unto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For these words also are capable of a double Interpretation.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in or among; and then the things themselves treated of may be intended. And if so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 requires the first signification, the chief and principal thing or matter. Among all the things treated of, this is the principal; as indeed it is, and that which all other things in debate did depend upon.

2. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be in a manner redundant, and no more is intended but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the things spoken, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be taken in the second signification, and denotes a Recapitulation of them. This is that which my Arguments amount unto, the Sum of what I have pleaded.

Both these Senses are consistent. For the Apostle in this and the ensuing Verses doth both briefly Recapitulate, what he had evinced by his preceding Arguments, and also declares what is the principal thing that he had contended for and proved. I incline unto the latter signification of the word, respected in our Translation; yet so as that the former also is true, and safely applicable unto the Text.

And some Directions we may take from the wisdom of the Apostle in this management of his present Subject, in our preaching or teaching of spiritual things. For,

1. When the nature and weight of the matter treated of, or the variety of Arguments wherein it is concerned, do require that our Discourse of it should be drawn forth unto a length more than ordinary, it is useful to refresh the minds, and relieve the memories of our Hearers, by a brief Recapitulation of the things insisted on. It is so, I say, sometimes; a this way is taken once, and but once by our Apostle. When it is necessary, is left unto the wisdom and choice of those who are called unto this work. I mean of such who laboring diligently and conscientiously in the discharge of it, do really consider at all times what is for the benefit and edification of their Hearers. But this is to be done only on great and importent occasions; the usual way of the Repetition of the Heads of Sermons before preached, is in my judgment useless and unprofitable.

2. When Doctrines are important, and such as the eternal welfare of the Souls of men are immediately concerned in, we are by all means to endeavor an impression of them on the minds of our Hearers. Be they never so precious and worthy of all Acceptation, ofttimes they will not obtain an Entrance into men's minds, unless they have an edge ministerially put upon them. Wherefore they are by all suitable means, with gravity and zeal to be called unto a diligent Attendance unto them. Weight is to be laid doctrinally in their delivery, on things that are of weight really in themselves. And this is the first Part of this Verse, or the Preface of what ensues.

II. The second Part of it in the following words, contains the first general Preeminence of our High Priest, and that taken from his present and eternal state or condition.

And there are three things considerable in the words. (1.) Our Relation unto this High Priest. (2.) The general Denotation of him. (3.) His Eminency and Dignity in particular above all others.

I. Our Relation unto him is expressed in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We have. For the Apostle, together with his Assertion of the Priesthood of Christ, and the Declaration of the Nature of it, doth frequently intersert the mention of our Interest therein, or our Relation unto him in the Discharge of that Office; Such an High Priest became us, Chap. 7. 26. We have not an High Priest that cannot, &c. Chap. 4. 15. The High Priest of our Profession, Chap. 3. 1. And here, we have such un High Priest. And to the same purpose we have an Altar, Chap. 13. 10. And two things the Apostle seems to design herein.

1. The Dignity of the Christian Church, as now separated from the Church of the Jews. In all their confidence in their Worship, that which they principally boasted of was their High Friest and his Office. He was anointed with the Holy Oil. He wore the Garments that were made for Beauty and Glory. He had on his Forehead a Plate of Gold, with that glorious Inscription, Holiness unto Jehovah. And He alone entered into the Holy Place, having made Expiation of the Sins of the People. The Christians who were now separated from them, they despised, as those who had no lot nor portion in all this Glory; no such visible High Priest as they had. So the same Persons were afterwards reproached by the Pagans, that they had neither Temples, nor Altars, nor Images or visible Deities. So hard was it to call off the carnal minds of Men, from things visible and sensible in Divine Worship, unto those that are spiritual and heavenly. And herein lies the reproach of degenerated Christians, especially those of the Roman Church, that whereas the Gospel in asserting the pure, heavenly, spiritual Worship of God, had prevailed against the World, and triumphed over all that is carnal, invented to please the senses, and satisfy the superstitious minds of Men; they have made themselves the scorn and spoil of their conquered Enemies, by returning to the same kind of Worship in various degrees, which was before destroyed and triumphed over. And as therein they seem to make a public acknowledgment, That the Gospel, in the management of their Predecessors, had much injured the World, in the Introduction of a Worship spiritual and divine, excluding all those visible Glories which it had found out to entertain the minds of Men; so it will appear in the issue that they have made themselves Transgressors, by building up what was before destroyed. But the Primitive Christians did still oppose the spiritual Worship of sanctified Souls, in the observation of the Institutions of Christ, unto all the pretences of Glory and Beauty pleaded to be in their outward force. So the Apostle here, to evince the Dignity of the Christian Church against the Unbelief of the Jews, pleads their Relation unto an invisible spiritual High Priest, exalted in Glory and Dignity far above all that they could enjoy by virtue of a carnal Commandment. Whatever you think of us, whatever you boast of yourselves, We have an High Priest; and that such an one, as he immediately declares.

2. He would teach us, that whatever be the Glory and Dignity of this High Priest, without an Interest in him, without an especial Relation unto him, unless we have an High Priest, we are not concerned therein. Many do give their assent unto this Truth, That Christ is an High Priest, but how or wherein he is so to them they know not, nor yet do they make any use of him as such. Yea, unto many, the principal mysteries of the Gospel are but mere Notions, and barren Speculations; what it is to be practically influenced by them, and to live in the power of them, they know not. That there is an High Priest they believe, but what it is for them to have an High Priest, they cannot understand. But this is that we are to look after, if we intend any benefit by it. And we may know whether we have an High Priest or no, really and substantially, by the use which we make of him as such in all our approaches unto God. For he presides over the whole House of God, and all the Sacred Services thereof. None can come unto the Father but by him. Through him have we Boldness, through him have we Ability, through him have we Access unto, and Acceptance with God. He presents both our Persons and Duties unto him. Without a daily improvement by Faith of the Office of Christ unto these ends, it cannot be said that we have an High Priest.

3. That the Office of the Priesthood of Christ is confined unto the Church, unto Believers. Theirs he is, and for them alone doth he administer before God in this Office.

II. There is a general Denotation of this Priest, as to his Qualifications, in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He doth not now say, That we have an High Priest only, nor another High Priest, not according to the Ordinances of the Law, which he had proved before, from the Type of Melchizedek, and the Testimony of the Psalmist; but moreover such an one as hath that Dignity and those Excellencies which he now ascribes unto him. The Salvation of the Church doth not depend merely on its having an High Priest, which yet in itself is absolutely necessary thereunto, but on his Dignity and Excellency, his Exaltation and Glory.

Wherefore it is affirmed of him, That he is such an High Priest as is set on the right hand of the Throne of the glorious Majesty in the Heavens. And two things we must consider in these words: (1.) The Design of the Apostle in them: And (2) Their particular Interpretation.

1. The Design of the Apostle as we observed before, was not to prove the Reality of his Priesthood, that he was truly a Priest; nor yet absolutely the Qualifications of his Person, but his Dignity and Excellency. For our Lord Jesus Christ when he was on the earth, and whilst he offered up to God his great propitiatory Sacrifice, was as unto his outward state and condition inferior unto the Levitical High Priests, who were in great honor and veneration among the People. But the state and condition of any in the bearing and discharge of an Office, is not to be esteemed and reckoned from what he condescends unto with respect unto any action or duty belonging unto that Office. For a King may condescend unto very mean Services, when the condition of his Subjects and good of the Kingdom require it of him. But it is to be reckoned from his durable estate, and perpetual abode therein. Now although our Lord Christ was for a season in a condition of deep humiliation, taking on him the form of a servant, and being esteemed even as a worm and no man, which was necessary unto the Sacrifice he had to offer; yet as unto his durable state wherein he continues in the discharge of his Office, he is incomparably exalted above all the High Priests under the Law. And this is that which the Apostle designs here to declare. For what did the High Priest do, after he had offered the Anniversary Sacrifice of Expiation unto God? He entered indeed into the Holy Place, with the blood of the Sacrifice, presenting it there before the august Pledges of the presence of God. But all the while he was there, he stood before the Typical Throne or Ark and Mercy-seat, with Holy Awe and Reverence. And immediately on the discharge of his present Duty, he was to withdraw and go out of the Holy Place. A great Privilege this was, and a great Honor was herein put on the High Priest. For all others, both Priests and People, were everlastingly excluded out of that Sanctuary. But what is this unto the Glory of our High Priest? For after he had offered his great Sacrifice unto God, he entered not into the Holy Place made with hands, but into Heaven itself. And he entered not to stand with humble Reverence before the Throne, but to sit on the Throne of God at his right hand. Nor did he do so to abide there for a season, but for evermore.

2. As to the words themselves, we may observe that the Apostle three times in this Epistle maketh use of them with some little variety. Chap. 1. 3. Chap. 12. 2. And in this place. Chap. 1. 3. He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High: where there is no mention of the Throne. Chap. 12. 2. He is sat down at the right hand of the Throne of God: where Majesty is not added. Here we have both; the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty. In the first place, the Glory of his Kingly Power is intended, in the last, his Exaltation and Glory, as they ensued on his Sufferings; and in this place, the Declaration of his Glory in his Priestly Office. The same Glory and Advancement hath respect unto various Acts and Powers in the Lord Christ.

The manner of his enjoyment of this Dignity and Glory is expressed in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He sat down. Hereof there was nothing Typical in the Legal High Priest, who never sat down in the Holy Place. But as he was in many things typed by the Levitical Priests, so in what they could not reach unto, he was represented in Melchizedek, who was both a King and a Priest. And hence he is prophesi'd of as a Priest upon his Throne, Zech. 6. 13. And the immutable stability of his state and condition is also intended.

2. The Dignity itself consists in the place of his Residence, where he sat down; and this was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , at the right hand. See the Exposition hereof, Chap. 1. 3.

3. This right hand is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . There is frequent mention in the Scripture of the Thorn of God. A Throne is Insigne Regium, an Ensign of Royal Power. That intended by it, is the manifestation of the Glory and Power of God in his Authority and Sovereign Rule over all.

4. This Throne is here said to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of Majesty, or Glorious Greatness and Power, that is, of God himself, for his essential Glory and Power is intended. The Right hand of the Throne of Majesty, is the same with the Right hand of God. Only God is represented in all his Glory, as on his Throne. Christ is sat down at the Right hand of God, as considered in all his glorious Power and Rule. Higher expression there cannot be used to lead us into an holy Adoration of the tremendous invisible Glory which is intended. And this is the eternal stable condition of the Lord Christ our High Priest. A state of inconceivable Power and Glory. Herein he dischargeth the remaining Duties of his Mediation, according as the nature of his especial Offices do require. In this state doth he take care and provide for the application of the benefits of his Oblation or Sacrifice unto Believers; and that by Intercession whereof we have spoken.

5. Thus is he said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Heavens; as in the other place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Highest, that is, Heavens. And by the Heavens here, not these visible aspectable Heavens are intended; for with respect unto them he is said to be exalted above all Heavens, and to have passed through them. But it is that which the Scripture calls the Heaven of Heavens, 1 Kings 8. 27. wherein is the especial residence and manifestation of the glorious presence of God. With respect hereunto our Savior hath taught us to call on our Father which is in Heaven. And from the words we may observe that

The principal Glory of the Priestly Office of Christ depends on the glorious Exaltation of his Person. To this end is it here pleaded by the Apostle, and thereby he evinceth his glorious Excellency above all the High Priests under the Law. To evidence and make useful this Observation, the things ensuing are to be observed.

1. The Divine Nature of Christ is capable of no real Exaltation by an addition of Glory, but only by the way of manifestation. So God absolutely is often in the Scripture said to be exalted, that is, he is so, when he himself by any Acts of Grace or Providence makes the eternal Glory of his Power, his Holiness, or any other properties of his Nature manifest and conspicuous; or when others ascribe unto him the Glory and Praise that are his due. So only may the Lord Christ be exalted or made glorious with respect unto his Divine Nature, wherein he is essentially over all God blessed forever. And there is in this way an Exaltation or Manifestation of Glory peculiar and proper unto the Person of Christ, as distinct from the Persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit. For he did in a peculiar way and manner for a season, forego and leave his Glory as to the Manifestation of it. For being (essentially) in the form of God, and counting it no robbery to be equal with God, yet he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, Phil. 2. 6, 7. In his Incarnation, and his whole converse on the Earth, he cast a veil over his eternal Glory, so as that it appeared not in its own native luster. Those indeed who believed on him, saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, John 1. 14. But they saw it darkly, and as in a Glass, during the time of his Humiliation. But after his Resurrection his Glory was unveiled and made conspicuous, even when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, according unto the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 4.

2. The Person of Christ as to his Divine Nature, was always on the Throne, and is uncapable of the Exaltation here mentioned, of sitting down at the right hand of it. Although he came down from Heaven, though he descended into the lower parts of the Earth, although he was exposed unto all miseries, was obedient unto death, the death of the Cross, wherein God redeemed his Church with his own blood, yet did he all this in the human nature that he assumed; his Divine Person can no more really leave the Throne of Majesty, than cease to be. So he saith of himself, No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man which is in Heaven, John 3. 13. His Ascension into Heaven in this place, which preceded the actual Ascension of his human Nature, is nothing but his admission into the knowledge of heavenly things, of all the secrets of the counsel of God, see John 1. 18. Matth. 11. 27. For it is of the knowledge of heavenly mysteries, that he is there discoursing with Nicodemus. In his Incarnation, he came down from Heaven, assuming a Nature upon the earth, the highest condescension of God. And whereas the actings of his power on the earth is often called his coming down from Heaven, Gen. 18. 21. Isa. 64. 1. How much more may this infinite condescension of the second Person in assuming our Nature be so called. But yet he was still in Heaven; the Son of man which is in Heaven. In his Divine Nature he was still on the Throne of Majesty. For this being an inseparable property of Divine Authority, he could never really forego it. Then

3. It is the Human Nature of Christ, or Christ in his Human Nature, or with respect unto it, that is capable of this real Exaltation, by a real addition of Glory. It is not the manifestation of his Glary with respect unto his Human Nature, but the real Collation of Glory on him after his Ascension, that is intended. This the whole Scripture testifieth unto, namely, a real communication of Glory unto Christ by the Father after his Ascension which he had not before. See Luke 24. 16. John 17. 24. Acts 2. 33. Acts 5. 31. Rom. 14. 9. Ephes. 1. 20, 21, 22, 23. Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11. Hebr. 1. 3. Chap. 12. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Rev. 5. 9. And concerning this Glory given him of God, we may observe

1. That it is not absolutely infinite and essentially divine Glory, This cannot be communicated unto any. A Creature, as was the Human Nature of Christ, cannot be made God, by an essential communication of Divine Properties unto it. Neither are they so communicable, nor is that a capable Subject of their inhesion. Wherefore they speak dangerously who assert a real communication of the Properties of the one Nature of Christ unto the other, so as that the Human Nature of Christ shall be Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient: neither doth the Union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ, require anymore the Transfusion of the Divine Properties into the Human, than those of the Human into the Divine. If therefore by that Union, the Human Nature should be thought to be rendered subjectively omnipotent and omnipresent, the Divine on the other hand must become limited and finite. But whatever belongs unto Christ with respect unto either Nature, belongs unto the Person of Christ, and therein he is all that he is in either Nature, and in both hath done and doth, what in either of them he hath done and doth, they yet continuing distinct in their essential Properties.

2. Yet this Exaltation and Glory of Christ in his Human Nature is not only absolutely above, but also of another kind, than the utmost of what any other created Being either hath, or is capable of. It is more than any other Creature is capable of, because it is founded in the Union of his Person, a Privilege which no other Creature can ever pretend unto, or be made Partaker of unto Eternity, Hebr. 2. 16. This renders his Glory in his Exaltation of another kind than that of the most glorious Creatures in their best condition. Again, it consists greatly in that Power and Authority over the whole Creation and every individual in it, and all their Concerns, which is committed unto him. See our Explanation hereof at large on Chap. 1. ver. 3.

4. This Exaltation of the Person of Christ gives Glory unto his Office, as the Apostle here declares. It is the Person of Christ which is vested with the office of the Priesthood, or God could not have redeemed his Church with his own blood; although he exercise all the Duties of it, both here, below and above in the Human Nature only. And it is the Person of Christ which is thus exalted and made glorious, although the especial Subject of this Exaltation and Glory be the Human Nature only. And this gives Glory unto his Office. For

1. This is a manifest Pledge and Evidence of the absolute Perfection of his Oblation, and that by one offering he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified. When the High Priest of old appeared for awhile in the Holy Place, he returned again unto his former station, that he might be in a condition to offer another Sacrifice at the return of the year. And hence doth our Apostle prove, That none of the Worshippers were perfected by those Sacrifices. But our High Priest having offered himself once for all, now sitting down forever at the right hand of God, in Glory and Majesty inconceivable, it is evident that he hath fully expiated the sins of all that come unto God by him. And this declares the Glory of his Office.

2. By his Glorious Power he makes all things subservient unto the ends of his mediation. For he is given to be Head over all things to the Church. All things are in his Power and at his Disposal, as he is exalted at the right hand of God, and he will assuredly make them all work together for the good of them that do believe. And

3. He is able to render the Persons and Duties of Believers accepted in the sight of God. To present them unto God is the great remaining Duty of his Office. That they be so, is their only real concern in this world, and that alone which their minds are principally exercised about. And what greater security can they have hereof, than the Interest and Glory which this their High Priest hath in Heaven? 1 John 2. 1, 2.

VER. 11.

THE second Preeminence of our Lord Christ as our High Priest, which the Apostle calls over in this Summary of his Discourse, is contained in this second Verse.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Minister; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vul. Lat. Sanctorum. Rhem. of the Holies. Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Holy House, or Domus Sanctuarii, of the House of the Sanctuary. Sanctuarii, of the Sanctuary; as we shall see. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vul. Lat. quod fixit Deus; which God hath fixed or pitched, Rhem. which our Lord pight; following the Original as to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not a Son of man. Some Copies of the Vulgar Latin, Dominus.

There are two Parts of these words, expressing,

1. What is affirmed of our High Priest, namely, That he was a Minister of the Sanctuary, and the true Tabernacle.

2. An Amplification of what is so affirmed, by the Description and Distinction of this Tabernacle; which the Lord fixed, and not man.

In the first also there are two things.

• 1. The Assertion of his Office, He is a Minister.
• 2. The Assignation and Limitation of his Discharge of that Office; it is the Sanctuary and true Tabernacle.

1. It is affirmed that he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Minister. Having declared the Glory and Dignity which he is exalted unto, as sitting down at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in Heaven; what can be farther expected from him? There he lives, eternally happy in the enjoyment of his own Blessedness and Glory. Is it not reasonable it should be so, after all the hardships and miseries which he, being the Son of God, underwent in this world? Who can expect that he should any longer condescend unto Office and Duty? Neither generally have men any other thoughts concerning him. But where then would lie the advantage of the Church in his Exaltation, which the Apostle designs in an especial manner to demonstrate? Wherefore unto the mention of it he immediately subjoins the continuation of his Office. He is still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Public Minister for the Church.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to minister; either with God, or before God, as a Priest for others, or for God, in the Name of God towards others, as do Magistrates and Ministers of the Gospel. And therefore all these sorts are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Lord Christ is expressly spoken of here as a Priest; it is a name of his Priestly Office wherein he acts towards God. Nor is he anywhere called or said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in any of his Actings from God towards us; although he be said therein to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 15. 8. that is, he was so in the days of his flesh, but that name now no way belongeth unto him. He is not therefore styled a Minister, because he executeth the Purposes of God towards us, as Schlictingius fancieth; but he acts towards God and before God on our behalf, according to the duty of a Priest. He went into Heaven to appear in the presence of God for us, and to discharge his Office before God on our behalf. And it is granted also, that by virtue thereof he doth also communicate all good things from God unto us. For the whole administration of things Sacred between God and the Church, is committed unto him. And we must observe, that

The Lord Christ in the Height of his Glory, condescends to discharge the Office of a public minister in the behalf of the Church. We are not to bound our Faith on Christ, as unto what he did for us on the Earth. The Life and Efficacy of the whole of his Mediation depends on what he did antecedently thereunto, and what he doth consequently unto it. For in these things doth the Glory of his Love and Grace most eminently appear. Antecedently unto what he did on Earth, and to make way for it, there was his infinite condescension in assuming our Nature. He was in the form of God, and in the eternal enjoyment of all the Blessedness which the Divine Nature is essentially accompanied withal. Yet being thus Rich, this was his Grace, that for our sakes he became poor. This ineffable Grace and Love of Christ is the principal object of our Faith and Admiration, as it is declared by the Apostle, Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. And as he emptied himself and laid aside his Glory for a season, to undertake the Work of Meditation; So now he hath reassumed his Glory as to the manifestation of his Divine Power, and hath the highest Addition of Glory in his Human Nature, by his exaltation at the right hand of God, yet he continueth his care of, and Love towards the Church, so as yet to discharge the office of a Public Minister in their behalf. As all the shame, reproach, misery with death that he was to undergo on the Earth deterred him not from undertaking this work: So all the Glory which he is environed withal in Heaven, diverts him not from continuing the Discharge of it.

2dly. There is a Limitation of this ministration of our High Priest, with respect unto its proper Object, and that in a double expression. For he is a Minister (1.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

1. He is so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The word may be either of the Masculine or of the Neuter Gender, and so respect either Persons or Things. If it be taken in the former way, it is of the Saints. And this is the ordinary sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Books of the New Testament; Saints, or Holy Persons. But they cannot be here precisely intended. And the Apostle useth this word frequently in another sense in this Epistle.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Neuter Gender may have a double signification. (1.) Of Holy things in general. (2.) Of Holy Places. (1.) Of things, So the Uul. Lat. renders the word, Sanctorum, which the Rhemists translate Holies; that is, of Holy Persons or Holy things. And ours place Holy things in the Margen. And the sense is true, if the signification of the word be extended unto all Holy Things. For the ministration of them all is committed unto Jesus Christ. But the word hath yet a more peculiar signification.

The inmost part of the Tabernacle, our Apostle calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. 9. 3. That is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —the Holy of Holies, the most Holy Place. And absolutely he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Holyes. Chap 9. 8, 12, 24, 25. Chap. 13. 11. And in answer thereunto he calleth our Spiritual Presence before God, whereunto we have an Access by the Blood of Christ, by the same name; Chap. 10. 19. And hence the word is rendered by most Interpreters, the Sanctuary, as by the Syr. The House of the Sanctuary. Particularly that Part of the Tabernacle whereinto the High Priest entered alone, and that but once a year.

Take this Sanctuary properly and literally, and Christ was not the minister of it. He never entered into it, nor could, nor had any Right so to do, because it belonged and was appropriated unto others as our Apostle declares, ver. 4.

Wherefore we must take our Direction herein from the words following. For mentioning the whole Tabernacle, as he doth here one part of it, namely, the Sanctuary, he gives it a note of Distinction from the Old Tabernacle of Moses, the true Tabernacle. So must the Sanctuary be distinguished from that of Old. It is that which answers thereunto. And this is nothing but Heaven itself. Heaven not as considered absolutely, but as the Place of God's glorious Presence, the Temple of the living God, where the worship of the Church is represented, and all its Affairs transacted. This is called God's Sanctuary, Psal. 102. 19. He looked down from the height of his Sanctuary, from Heaven did the Lord behold the Earth. And so the Apostle himself plainly interprets this place, Chap. 9. 24. Christ is not entered into the Holy Places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself.

And this is called the Sanctuary, because there doth really dwell and abide all that was typically represented in the Sanctuary below. And therein doth the Lord Christ discharge his Priestly Office for the good of the Church. It was a joyful time with the Church of Old, when the High Priest entered into the Holy Place. For he carried with him the Blood wherewith Atonement was made for all their sins. Yet he was quickly again to leave that Place and his Ministration therein. But our High Priest abides in the Sanctuary, in the Holy Place forever, always representing the efficacy of the Blood whereby atonement was made for all our sins. As no Interposition between Heaven and us should discourage us, while Christ is there ministering for us; so his being there will draw our hearts and minds thither continually, if so be we are really interested in his Holy ministrations. These things are to some in darkness and obscurity if not wholly out of their sight, yet out of their Practice. In their Faith, Worship, and Obedience, they find no concernment in the Heavenly ministrations of this High Priest. Things within the Vail are hid from them. Yet would such Persons be esteemed Christians. But the Relief, the Direction, the Consolation, which true Believers do or may, in the due exercise of Faith, receive by the consideration hereof, are gracious and pleasant, yea full of Glory.

The second Part of the Limitation of the ministration of our High Priest is in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and of that true Tabernacle, which is farther described by its efficient cause expressed both positively and negatively; which God pitched and not man.

Expositors generally agree, that by True in this Place, that which is Substantial, Solid and abiding is intended. For it is opposed unto that which is Umbratile, Transitory and Pigurative. The Old Tabernacle could in no sense be said to be false or deceiving, for it was an Ordinance of God, set up and used by his Appointment, and gave true directions unto its proper end. But it was Figurative and Typical, denoting somewhat that was to be the true and substantial Tabernacle of God. So is the expression interpreted, John 6. 23. Moses gave you not the Bread from Heaven, but my Father giveth you the true Bread from Heaven; that is, Spiritually substantial and abiding, nourishing the soul unto eternal Life.

But what is the Tabernacle here intended, deserves our diligent enquiry. And I find a fourfold sense to be given of these words; The true Tabernacle.

1. Some (as Grotius) take it for this whole Universe, the Fabric of Heaven and Earth. This some, even among the Heathen, have called the Tabernacle and Temple of God. This he hath made as it were to dwell in, as a certain fixed Place for the manifestation of his Glory. And whereas the ministry of Christ, at least as unto the effects of it, is not confined unto any certain Place, above or below, to no material Tabernacle or Temple; The whole universe is called his Tabernacle, as being that which is true, substantial, and abiding. And thus it may answer what is affirmed of all Power being given unto him in Heaven and Earth, and his being given to be the Head over all things unto the Church.

I see nothing absurd in this Opinion, nor contradictory unto the Analogy of Faith. But the Design of the Apostle in using these words and expressions, will not allow this to be his especial meaning. For somewhat he doth intend that the Old Tabernacle did typify and represent, which it did not the Fabric of the Universe, but that especial pattern which was shown unto Moses in the Mount.

2. Some with more probability do judge, that by the true Tabernacle, the Universal Spiritual, Catholic Church, is intended. For this is compared expressly unto a Tabernacle, Isa. 33. 20. Chap. 54. 2. And herein doth God dwell, and walk amongst men. Hereof Christ may be said to be the minister. For as he is the Head of it, so he dwelleth in it. And it is undoubtedly in the behalf of this Tabernacle, that he continueth to administer in the Holy Place: and all the Benefits of his Ministration do redound hereunto.

But yet all this doth not suffice to have the Lord Christ called the Minister of this Tabernacle. This indeed is that which he ministereth for, but it is not that which he ministereth by. The Tabernacle and the things contained in it were the means of worship, and that which was materially employed in divine service, which the Catholic Church answereth not unto. Neither was the Tabernacle of Old which is here alluded unto, a Type of the Church, but of Christ himself.

3. Most Expositors take the Tabernacle, as they do the Sanctuary, for Heaven itself. And they would have the word true by a Zeugma to belong unto the Sanctuary, as well as unto the Tabernacle, which we have also before allowed. But yet this proveth not, that the Sanctuary and the Tabernacle must be the same, though both be equally true in the same sense. This way go the Greek Expositors, as Chrysostom, Theophylact and Oecumenius on the Place. And because this Tabernacle is said to be fixed of God, Chrysostom reproacheth them who say, that the Heavens do move and are Spherical, though he never had a prophetical dream of the Copernican Hypothesis. But yet as Beza well observes, they forsook their own interpretation on Chap. 9. 11, 12. where the Tabernacle is spoken of in the same sense that here it is.

But besides the Reasons that shall be given immediately for another interpretation, two things will not comply with this. For (1.) There is no reason why the Apostle should express the same thing, first under the name of the Sanctuary, and then of a Tabernacle. (2.) There is no especial Reason why it should be added peculiarly concerning the Heavens, which God hath fixed, and not man; for this was never questioned.

4. I say therefore that by this true Tabernacle, the Human Nature of the Lord Christ himself is intended. Hereof he is the Minister, herein doth he minister before God above. For

1. Hereof the Old Tabernacle was a Type. Thence is the expression taken, and thereunto is opposition made in the Epithet, True. This therefore is our best direction and rule in the interpretation of this expression. For look what that Type did signify, what was to be the substantial Antitype of it, that is the true Tabernacle whereof the Lord Christ is the Minister. For all agree that it is called true, in opposition and answer unto that which was umbratile and figurative. Now that Tabernacle was not erected to be a Type of Heaven, nor is any such thing intimated in the Scripture. A token, pledge, and means it was of God's presence with his People here on earth, of his nearness unto them, whence also he is said to dwell among them. But this he doth really and substantially only through Christ. He therefore alone is this true Tabernacle. For

2. In answer hereunto when he was incarnate, and came into the world, it is said that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He fixed his Tabernacle among us, John 1. 14. that is the signification of the word which we have translated to dwell, because the Tabernacle of old was the way and means of God's dwelling among the People, in the pledges of his gracious presence. All that old curious Structure for an Habitation for God, did only represent his taking our nature upon him, fixing his Tent thereby among men. What was the pattern of this Tabernacle shown unto Moses on the Mount we must inquire, on ver. 5.

3. He himself calleth his own Body his Temple, with respect unto the Temple at Jerusalem, which was of the same nature and use with the Tabernacle, John 2. 19, 22. And this he did, because his Body was that true substantial Temple and Tabernacle whereof he was the Minister.

4. That is the true Tabernacle which God truly and really inhabiteth, and on the account whereof he is our God. This was the nature, use and end of the Tabernacle of old. God dwelt therein in the signs and pledges of his presence, and was on the account thereof the God of that People, according to the terms of the Covenant between them, Exod. 25. 8. Rev. 21. 3. That therefore wherein God dwells really and substantially, and on the account whereof he is our God in the Covenant of Grace, that and no other is the true Tabernacle. But this is in Christ alone; For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2. 9. Thus the Human Nature of Christ is that true substantial Tabernacle, wherein God dwelleth personally.

5. He is the only way and means of our approach unto God in holy Worship, as the Tabernacle was of old; which we have elsewhere declared.

That alone which seems to be of any force against this Interpretation, is, that the Human Nature of Christ is that wherein he is the Minister of this Tabernacle; it cannot therefore be the Tabernacle itself wherein he doth administer, and therefore the place of his abode must be intended by the Tabernacle whereof he is the Minister.

Answ. By the same Rule it would follow, That because Christ is the High Priest, he is not the Sacrifice, for the Priest and the Sacrifice among men cannot be the same. Howbeit Christ offered himself only. And the reason of these things is, that he was in his own Person and what he did therein, to answer all those Types of Priest, Sacrifice, Altar, Tabernacle, and what belonged thereunto. He was the body and substance of them all, Col. 2. 17. No one of them was able to represent the fullness of Grace that was to be in Christ. Therefore were there many of them ordained, and those of various sorts. And therefore his being eminently intended in one of them, no way hinders his being so in another. He was all in himself, Priest, Tabernacle, Altar and Sacrifice.

Lastly, The efficient cause of this true Tabernacle is declared both positively and negatively; which God hath pitched, and not man. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is in the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , confined unto the Tabernacle, and extends not unto the Sanctuary mentioned before. Of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched. And hereby this Tabernacle is distinguished from both the Sanctuaries, the Typical here below, and the Real above, even Heaven itself. For it was not of the same Building with either of them, as the Apostle declares, Chap. 9. 11.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pitched, fixed. It is a word proper unto the erection and establishment of a Tabernacle. The fixing of Stakes and Pillars, with the fastening of Cords thereunto, was the principal means of setting up a Tabernacle, Isa. 54. 2. The preparation of the Human Nature or Body of Christ is that which is intended. A Body hast thou prepared me, Chap. 10. 5. And this Body was to be taken down, and folded up for a season, and afterwards to be erected again, without the breaking or loss of any part of it. This of all Buildings was peculiar unto a Tabernacle, and so was it with the Body of Christ in his Death and Resurrection.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Author of this work was the Lord: This is the word or Name whereby the Writers of the New Testament do express the name Jehovah. And whereas in the revelation of that name, God declared that self-subsisting firmitude and unchangeableness of his nature, whereby he would infallibly give subsistence unto his Word, and accomplishment unto his Promises, the Apostle hath respect unto it in this great work wherein all the Promises of God became Yea and Amen. How this Tabernacle was prepared and fixed immediately by the Holy Ghost acting the infinite power of God alone therein, I have at large elsewhere declared.

It is added negatively and not man. Some suppose a Pleonasm in the words, and that this expression is redundant. For to say it was pitched by God, sufficiently includes that it was not done by man. But the expression is emphatical, and the Apostle hath an especial design in it. For

1. The Old Tabernacle itself may in some sense be said to be pitched by God. It was done by his command, order and direction, as were all other Ordinances of his appointment. But it cannot be said that God pitched it, and not man, which excludes the whole Service and Ministry of Man. For the Ministry of Men was used in the preparation, framing and erection of it. But the pitching of this true Tabernacle was the work of God alone, without any Ministry or Service of men; A Body hast thou prepared me.

2. The Apostle hath an especial respect unto the Incarnation of Christ, without the concurrence of man in natural Generation. This is expressed in answer unto that enquiry of the blessed Virgin, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1. 34, 35.

This was the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and whereof Christ is the Minister. And we may observe,

1. That all spiritually sacred and holy things are laid up in Christ. All the utensils of Holy Worship of old, all means of Sacred Light and Purification, were all placed and laid up in the Tabernacle. And these were all Patterns of the heavenly things themselves, which are all laid up in Christ the true Tabernacle. They are all enclosed in him, and it will be in vain to seek for them elsewhere. For

2. He hath the Ministration of all these holy things committed unto him. He is the Minister both of the Sanctuary and Tabernacle, and of all things contained in them. Herein he stands in no need of help or assistance, nor can any take his work out of his hand.

3. The Human Nature of Christ is the only true Tabernacle wherein God would dwell personally and substantially. The dwelling of God with men, was ever looked on as an infinite condescension. So Solomon expressed it in his Prayer at the dedication of the Temple, But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven, and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, 1 Kings 8. 27. But there are various degrees of this condescension, various kinds of this inhabitation of God among men. Under the Old Testament, he dwelt in the Tabernacle and Temple, by many symbols and pledges of his glorious presence. Such in especial was the Ark and Mercy-seat; whence that which was done before the Ark, is said to be done before the Lord, Exod. 30. 5, 8. This was as Solomon expresseth it, a great condescension in the infinite, incomprehensible God, and there was a great Glory accompanying this his presence. Under the New Testament God dwelleth in his Saints by his Spirit, whereby they become an holy Temple unto him. And of this inhabitation of God, I have treated elsewhere. But his dwelling in the Human Nature of Christ is quite of another nature than either of these, and his love with his condescension, inconceivably more conspicuous than in them.

Hence is that expression of our Apostle, In him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2. 9. It is not any sign or token, it is not any effect of the Divine Power, Goodness and Grace that dwells in him, but the fullness of the Godhead, that is, the Divine Nature itself. And this dwelleth in him bodily; that is, by the Assumption of the Body, or the Human Nature into Personal Subsistence with the Son of God. How glorious should this be in our eyes? How did they admire the condescension of God of old, in his dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple by the glorious signs of his presence? And yet was it all but a dark representation and shadow of this glorious Love and Grace, whereby he dwells in our nature in Christ.

4. The Church hath lost nothing by the removal of the Old Tabernacle and Temple, all being supplied by this Sanctuary, true Tabernacle, and Minister thereof. The Glory and Worship of the Temple was that which the Jews would by no means part withal. They chose rather to reject Christ and the Gospel, than to part with the Temple, and its outward pompous worship. And it is almost increadible how the vain mind of man is addicted unto an outward beauty and splendor in Religious worship. Take it away, and with the most you destroy all Religion itself; as if there were no beauty but in painting, no evidence of health, or vigor of body, but in warts and wens. The Christians of old suffered in nothing more from the prejudice of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, than in this, that they had a Religion, without Temples, Altars, Images, or any Solemnity of worship. And in latter Ages men ceased not, until they had brought into Christianity itself a worship vying for external Order, Ceremony, Pomp and Painting, with whatever was in the Tabernacle or Temple of old, coming short of it principally in this, that, that was of God's institution for a time, this of the invention of weak, superstitious and foolish Men. Thus is it in the Church of Rome. And an hard thing it is to raise the minds of Men unto a satisfaction in things merely spiritual and heavenly. They suppose they cannot make a worse change, nor more to their disadvantage, than to part with what is a present object and entertainment unto their Senses, Fancies, carnal Affections and Superstitions, for that which they can have no benefit by, nor satisfaction in, but only in the exercise of Faith and Love, inclining us to that within the veil. Hence is there at this day so great a contest in the world, about Tabernacles, and Temples, Modes of Worship and Ceremonies, which Men have found out in the room of them, which they cannot deny but God would have removed; For so they judge that he will be satisfied with their carnal Ordinances in the Church, when the time is come that he would bear his own no longer. But unto them that believe Christ is precious. And this true Tabernacle with his Ministration is more unto them, than all the old pompous Ceremonies and Services of Divine Institution, much more the Superstitious Observances of Human Invention.

5. We are to look for the gracious presence of God in Christ only. Of old all the Tokens and Symbols of God's presence were confined unto and included in the Tabernacle. There were they to be found and nowhere else. Many Altars the People of old did erect elsewhere, many high places they found out and prepared, but they were all sin and misery unto them; God granted his presence unto none of them all. Hos. 8. 11. Chap. 12. 11. And many ways there are whereby Men may and do seek after the presence of God, after his favor and acceptance with him, not in and by this true Tabernacle. But they labor in vain, and spend their strength for that which doth not profit. Neither the Love, nor Grace, nor Goodness, nor Mercy of God are elsewhere to be found, nor can we by any other way be made partakers of them.

6. It is by Christ alone that we can make our approach unto God in his Worship. All Sacrifices of old were to be brought unto the door of the Tabernacle. What was offered elsewhere was an Abomination to the Lord. With the Instruments, with the Fire, with the Incense that belonged unto the Tabernacle, were they to be offered and no otherwise. And it is now by Christ alone that we have an access in one Spirit unto the Father, Ephes. 2. 18. He is the only way of going to him, John 14. 6. And it is in and by his blood that he hath consecrated a new and living way unto the holy place, Chap. 10. 19, 20.

7. It was an Institution of God that the People in all their Distresses should look unto, and make their Supplications towards the Tabernacle or holy Temple. 1 Kings 8. 29, 30. And it is unto the Lord Christ alone who is both the true Tabernacle and the Minister thereof, that we are to look in all our spiritual Distresses.

8. If any one else can offer the Body of Christ, he also is the Minister of the true Tabernacle. For the Lord Christ did no more. He did but offer himself; and they that can offer him, do put themselves in his place.

VER. III.

T HE Summary Description of our High Priest designed, is carried on in this Verse, And the Apostle manifests, that as he wanted nothing, which any other High Priest had, that was necessary unto the discharge of his Office; so he had it all in a more eminent manner than any other had.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Qui stat ut offerat, Who standeth (that is at the Altar) that he may offer; rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neutrally, the whole sense is imperfect, For every High Priest who standeth (at the Altar) that he may offer gifts and sacrifices; therefore

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Oblationem, vul. Munera. Some rather use dona, and some donaria, sacred Gifts.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sacrifices, vul. Hostias; and the Rhemists, Hosts, it may be to countenance their name of the Host in the Mass.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 justum erat, aequum erat; it was just and equal. vul. necesse est, in the present tense, it is necessary. Beza, necesse fuit, it was necessary; properly; and so the Syriac renders the Verb Substantive understood in the Original, or included in the Infinitive Mood following, in the Preterimperfect Tense.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , habere, hunc habere; Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 huic ut esset ei; To this Man that there should be to him, or with him.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . vul. aliquid quod offerat; something that he may offer. Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Something that he should offer. The Arabic adds for himself, corruptly.

The Connection of these words unto what was before asserted, which giveth us the design of the Apostle in them, is expressed in the causal Conjunction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For. He both giveth a confirmation of what he had before affirmed, namely, that Christ was the Minister of the true Tabernacle, that is, of his Body, and rendereth a reason why it should so be; and this he farther confirms in the Verses ensuing.

The Reason he insists on, is taken from the general nature of the Office of every High Priest. That the Lord Christ is our High Priest, he had sufficiently demonstrated and confirmed before; this therefore he now assumes as granted. And hereon what belongs unto him as such, he farther manifests, by showing what the nature of that Office required, and what did necessarily belong unto everyone that was Partaker thereof.

There are therefore two things in the words.

I. A general Assertion of the Nature, Duty, and Office of every High Priest.

II. A particular Inference from thence, of what did necessarily belong unto the Lord Christ in the susception and discharge of this Office.

In the first, the Universality of the expression is to be observed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Every High Priest. By the context this Universal is cast under a Limitation with respect unto the Law; every High Priest, that is, made or appointed by the Law; for of those alone the Apostle treateth. There was indeed never any High Priest accepted of God, but those ordained by the Law; yet was it necessary unto the Apostle, to make mention of the Law also. And although they were many of them, yet were they all of the same order and Office, and so were all alike authorized and obliged unto the same Duties. Wherefore the Apostle thus expresseth it by every High Priest, to evidence that there lay no exception against his argument, seeing that in the whole multitude of High Priests in their succession from first to last, there was no one but he was appointed unto this end, and had this Duty incumbent on him. Yea it is not one especial Duty of their Office that might be omitted, which he insisteth on, but the general end for which they were ordained; as he expresseth it in the next word.

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is ordained; that is, appointed of God by the Law. Of the sense of this word, I have spoken before, as also of the thing intended; see Chap. 5. 12.

God's Ordination or Appointment gives Rules, Measures and ends unto all sacred Offices and Employments. Whoever undertakes anything in Religion or Divine Worship, without it, besides it, beyond it, is a transgressor and therein worshippeth God in vain. He whom God doth not ordain in his service, is an Intruder; and that which he doth not appoint is an usurpation. Nor will he accept of any Dutys, but what he himself hath made so.

3. The principal end why the High Priests were ordained of God is expressed; it was to offer Gifts and Sacrifices. This appears in their Original Institution, Exod. Chap. 28. 29.

1. They were to offer. God appointed Aaron and his successors, on purpose to offer Gifts and Sacrifices for the whole People.

2. None but they were to offer, that is, none but the Priests were so; none but they might approach unto God, to offer anything sacredly unto him. The People might bring their Offerings unto God, but they could not offer them on the Altar. And some Offerings, as those at the Feast of Expiation were appropriated unto the High Priests only. So is the case stated by Azariah the High Priest, 2 Chrom. 26. 18. Not unto thee Uzziah to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron who are consecrated, from Exod. 30. 7. Numb. 18. 7.

And God hereby taught the People that nothing should ever be accepted from them, but in and by the hand of the great High Priest who was to come. And this is that which we are yet taught thereby. And whoever he be, if as great and prosperous as King Uzziah who shall think to approach unto God immediately without the Interposition of this High Priest, he is smitten with the plague of Spiritual Leprosy.

4. What they were to offer is also declared. Gifts and Sacrifices. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Munera, donaria, dona. Sometimes all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Corbanes in general are intended by this word. For all sacred Offerings of what sort soever, are so called at their first Institution, Lev. 1. 2. If any one among you bring his Corban unto the Lord. And thereon the especial Kinds of Offerings and Sacrifices are enumerated, which in general were all Corbans. So everything that is brought unto the Altar is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 5. 23, 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when thou bringest thy Gift; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To Offer Gifts, sacred Gifts of all sorts, especially Sacrifices properly so called. Or by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Minchoth may be intended, as by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Zebachim are. For these two contain the whole complex of sacred offerings. For Zebachim or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are bloody Sacrifices; Sacrifices by Immolation or killing of what sort soever the matter of it was, or unto what especial end soever it was designed. And the Minchoth were offerings of dead things, as of Corn, Oil, Meats and Drinks. To offer all these was the Office of the Priesthood ordained. And we are taught thereby. That,

There is no Approach unto God without continual respect unto Sacrifice and Atonement. The principal end of Sacrifices was to make Atonement for sin. And so necessary was this to be done, that the Office of the Priesthood was appointed for it. Men do but dream of the Pardon of sin or acceptance with God without Atonement.

This the Apostle layeth down as that which was necessary for every High Priest by God's Institution. There never was any High Priest, but his Office and Duty it was to Offer Gifts and Sacrifices, for unto that end was he ordained of God.

Hence he infers that it was necessary that This Man should have somewhat to Offer. For being a Minister of the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the true Tabernacle, an High Priest he was. But this he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer unto God. A Priest that had nothing to offer, that was not ordained unto that end, is indeed no Priest at all.

And in this Assumption of the Apostle, we may observe. (1.) The note of inference; Wherefore; (2.) The Designation of the Person spoken of, This man. (3.) The Manner of the Asscription made unto him; He must have; (4.) The matter of it, somewhat to offer.

1. The note of Inference is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Wherefore, It is frequently used by the Apostle, in this Epistle, when he proves his present Assertions, from the Old Institutions of the Law and their signification. Chap. 2. 17. 3. 1. 25. 9, 18. And the whole force of this Inference, especially that in this place, depends on this Supposition, that all the Old Typical Institutions did represent what was really to be accomplished in Christ; whence it was necessary, that he should be what they did signify and represent. Hence it is often observed in the Gospel, that he did or suffered such things or in such a manner, because things were so ordered under the Law.

2. The Designation of the Person is expressed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This Man. He of whom we speak, this High Priest of the New Testament, whom he had before described, and specified by his Name Jesus, and by his Dignity, the Son of God. That this Man, this Jesus the High Priest of the New Testament.

3. The subject being stated, that which he affirms thereof, is that He, this Priest, must have somewhat to offer. And this was of necessity, that so it should be. For what ever otherwise this Glorious Person were or might be, yet an High Priest he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer; for to offer Gifts and Sacrifices is the sole end of that office.

This necessity then was absolute. For without this no Office of Priesthood could be discharged, and consequently no Atonement be made, nor could we be brought unto God.

And it is said, that it was thus necessary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that he should have. And it is not Possession only that is intended; but Possession with respect unto use. He was so to have somewhat to offer, as to offer it accordingly. For it would not avail the Church to have an high Priest that should have somewhat to offer, if it were not actually offered. Wherefore respect is had both unto the meetness of Christ unto his Office, and his Faithfulness therein. He had what to offer, and he did offer it.

3. The matter of his offering is expressed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , somewhat to offer, that is, in Sacrifice unto God. The Apostle expresseth it indefinitely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but what it is, which he was to have, he doth not as yet declare. He was not engaged farther by his present Argument. But he elsewhere declares expressly what this was that he had to offer, what was the matter of his Sacrifice, and what it was necessary that it should be. And this was himself, His whole Human Nature Soul and Body.

It may be it will be said, that it doth not necessarily follow, that if he have somewhat to offer, it must be himself. For he might offer somewhat else out of the Flocks and Herds, as they did of old. Nor indeed doth the Apostle intend directly to prove it in this place, namely, that it must be himself which he must offer. But it doth necessarily follow from the Arguments before insisted on; Chap. 7. For whatever else God had appointed or approved of to be offered in Sacrifice, he had ordained the Levitical Priesthood to offer, and appropriated the offering of it unto them, so as no such Sacrifice could ever be offered by any who was not of the seed of Aaron. Whereas therefore our High Priest was not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Judah, it is evident that he could not offer any of the things which were appropriated unto their ministry and service. And hence our Apostle in the next verse, affirms directly, that if he was on the Earth, that is, to officiate in his Office with the things of the Earth after the manner of other Priests, he could not be so much as a Priest at all, seeing all such services were appropriated unto and performed by the Priests of another Order. Again; if he might have done so, and accordingly had done so, our Apostle manifests that his Priesthood must have been ineffectual as unto the proper ends of it. For the Law could make nothing perfect; not only because of the Infirmity and Imperfection of its Priests, but also because of the Insufficiency of its Sacrifices unto the great ends of expiating sin, by whomsoever they were offered. For it is impossible, as he declares, that the Blood of Bulls or Goats should ever take away sin, or purge the conscience of the sinner. Chap. 10. 1, 2, 3. &c. Wherefore as it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, so it was necessary that this somewhat should be himself and nothing else.

Something must yet be added as unto the reading of the words themselves which influenceth their proper sense. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , necessary, of necessity must have the verb substantive added to determine its signification. Erasmus adds, est; it is necessary; and we render it, it is of necessity. Beza supplies, fuit, as doth the Syriac Interpreter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuit, erat, it was necessary. And so he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by quod offerret, which he should offer, in both respecting the time past. Others render it by quod offerat, which he may offer, with respect unto the time present or to come. And Beza gives this account of his Translation, namely, that the Apostle having respect unto the Sacrifice of Christ which was past, affirms, that it was necessary that he should have somewhat that he might offer; and not that it is necessary, that he should have somewhat to offer. And although I will not deny, but that the Lord by reason of the perpetual efficacy of his Oblation and the Representation of it in his Intercession, may be said to offer himself, yet his Sacrifice and Oblation of himself were properly on the Earth, as I have fully proved elsewhere.

This Text being urged by Grotius with respect unto the Offering and Sacrifice of Christ, Crellius replies, Concludit Scriptor Divinus ex eo quod Christus sit Sacerdos, necesse esse ut habeat quod offerat; non ut loquitur Grotius necesse fuisse ut haberet quod offerret, quasi de re praeteritâ loquatur. Response. ad cap. x. But as Beza very well observes, the Apostle had before mentioned the one offering of Christ, as already perfected and completed, Chap. 7. 27. He cannot therefore speak of it now but as that which was past; and here he only shows how necessary it was that he should have himself to offer, and so to offer himself, as he had done. And from these words we may observe,

1. That there was no salvation to be had for us, no not by Jesus Christ himself, without his Sacrifice and Oblation. It was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offir, as well as those Priests had of old according to the Law. Some would have it that the Lord Christ is our Savior, because he declared unto us the way of salvation, and gave us an example of the way whereby we may attain it, in his own personal obedience. But whence then was it of necessity that he must have somewhat to offer unto God as our Priest, that is, for us? For this belongeth neither unto his Doctrine nor Example. And it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, in answer unto those Sacrifices of old which were offered for the expiation of sin. Nor would our salvation be otherwise effected, by any other Acts or Duties of our High Priest. For the Church could not be saved without taking away the guilt of sin. And the whole design of the Priests and Sacrifices of old, was to teach and instruct the Church, how alone this might be performed. And this was only by making atonement for it by Sacrifice, wherein the Beast sacrificed did suffer in the room of the Sinner, and did by God's institution bear his iniquity. And this our Apostle hath respect unto, and the realizing of all those Typical Representations in Christ, without which his whole discourse is useless and vain. Wherefore there was no other way for our salvation, but by a real propitiation or atonement made for our sins. And whosoever looketh for it otherwise, but in the faith and virtue thereof, will be deceived.

2. As God designed unto the Lord Christ the work which he had to do, so he provided for him, and furnished him with whatever was necessary thereunto. Somewhat he must have to offer. And this could not be anything which was the matter of the Sacrifices of the Priests of old. For all those Sacrifices were appropriated unto the discharge of the Priesthood. And besides, they were none of them able to effect that which he was designed to do. Wherefore a body did God prepare for him, as is declared at large, Chap. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, &c.

3. The Lord Christ being to save the Church in the way of Office, he was not to be spared in anything necessary thereunto. And in conformity unto him

4. Whatever state or condition we are called unto, what is necessary unto that state is indispensibly required of us. So is Holiness and Obedience required unto a state of Reconciliation and Peace with God.

VER. IV.

VUl. Lat. si esset super terram; all others, in terra, to the same purpose. Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Earth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . even also he should not be a Priest. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Vulgar omits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and renders the words, cum essent qui offerrent. Rhem. Whereas there were who did offer. The Syriac agrees with the Original; Manentibus illis Sacerdotibus; quum sint alii Sacerdotes.

In the preceding Discourses the Apostle hath fully proved, that the Introduction of this new Priesthood under the Gospel had put an end unto the old; and that it was necessary so it should do, because as he had abundantly discovered in many instances, it was utterly insufficient to bring us unto God, or to make the Church-State perfect. And withal he had declared the nature of this new Priesthood. In particular he hath shown, that although this High Priest offered his great expiatory Sacrifice once for all, yet the consummation of this Sacrifice, and the derivation of the Benefits of it unto the Church, depended on the following discharge of his Office, with his personal state and condition therein. For so was it with the High Priest under the Law, as unto his great Anniversary Sacrifice at the Feast of Expiation, whose efficacy depended on his entrance afterwards into the holy place. Wherefore he declares this state of our High Priest to be spiritual and heavenly, as consisting in the Ministry of his own Body in the Sanctuary of Heaven.

Having fully manifested these things, unfolding the mystery of them, he proceeds in this Verse to show how necessary it was that so it should be, namely that he should neither offer the things appointed in the Law, nor yet abide in the state and condition of a Priest here on earth, as those other Priests did. In brief he proves that he was not in anything to take on him the Administration of holy things in the Church, according as they were then established by Law. For whereas it might be objected, If the Lord Christ was an High Priest as he pleaded, why then did he not administer the holy things of the Church according to the duty of a Priest? To which he replies, That so he was not to do; yea a supposition that he might do so, was inconsistent with his Office, and destructive both of the Law and the Gospel. For it would utterly overthrow the Law, for one that was not of the Line of Aaron to officiate in the holy place; and God had by the Law made provision of others, that there was neither room nor place for his Ministry. And the Gospel also would have been of no use thereby, seeing the Sacrifice which it is built upon, would have been of the same nature with those under the Law. This the Apostle confirms in this Verse.

The words are an Hypothetical Proposition, with the Reason or Confirmation of it. The Proposition is in the former part of the Verse; For if indeed he were on the earth, he should not be a Priest. Hereof the remainder of the words is the Reason or Confirmation, Seeing that there are Priests that offer Gifts according unto the Law.

And we may consider first the Causal Connection, For, which relates unto what he had discoursed immediately before, as introducing a Reason why things ought to be, as he had declared. He had in sundry instances manifested his present state and condition, with the way and manner of the discharge of his Office. A Priest he was, and therefore he must have somewhat to offer, which must be somewhat of his own, seeing the Law would not accommodate him with a Sacrifice, nor yet the whole Creation; the Law having prepossessed unto its own use, all that was clean and fit to be offered unto God. A Sanctuary he must also have wherein to officiate, and this was to be Heaven itself, because he was himself exalted into Heaven, and set down at the right hand of God. And of all this there was yet another especial Reason; For if he were on the earth, &c.

If indeed he were on earth. The Emphasis of the Particle Per is not to be omitted. If really it were so; or therein is Force granted unto the Concession that the Apostle here makes; truly it must be so.

If he were on Earth, includes two things.

1. His continuance and abode on the Earth. If he were not exalted into Heaven in the discharge of his Office, if he were not at the right hand of God, if he were not entered into the heavenly Sanctuary, but could have discharged his whole Office here on the Earth without any of these things. If he were thus on the Earth, or thus to have been on the Earth.

2. The state and condition of his Priesthood. If he were on the Earth, or had a Priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the Law, if he were to have offered the same Sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the Earth; if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his Sacrifice could not be absolutely consummate without the presentation of himself in the most holy place, not made with hands.

These two things the Apostle was treating of; (1) His present state and condition as to the Sanctuary wherein he administered, which was heavenly. (2) His Sacrifice and Tabernacle, which was himself; in opposition unto both these, is this Supposition made, If he were on the Earth.

This therefore is the full sense of this Supposition, which is well to be observed to clear the meaning of the whole Verse, which the Socinians endeavor with all their skill and force, to wrest unto their Heresy. If we did aver him to have such a Priesthood, as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the Earth, and to administer in the Sanctuary of the Tabernacle or Temple with the blood of legal Sacrifices.

On this Supposition the Apostle grants that he could not be a Priest. He had not been, or could not be so much as a Priest, or a Priest at all in any sense. That a Priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, he had proved before. And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his Sacrifice, Tabernacle and Sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a Priest.

It will be said, that he was a Priest on the Earth, and that therein he offered his great Expiatory Sacrifice in and by his own blood. And it is true. But (1) This was not on the Earth in the sense of the Law, which alone appointed the Sacrifices on the Earth; it was not in the way, nor after the manner of the Sacrifices of the Law, which are expressed by that Phrase on the Earth. (2) Although his Oblation or Sacrifice of himself was complete on the Earth, yet the whole Service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accomplished on the Earth. Had he not entered into Heaven to make a representation of his Sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the High Priest of the Church, from that offering of himself, because the Church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that Sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the Earth, and not afterwards to have entered the heavenly Sanctuary to make it effectual.

The High Priest on the great day of Expiation perfected his Sacrifice for his own sin, and the sins of the people without the Tabernacle. But yet he neither could nor would, nor ought to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the Ark and Mercy-seat, the Throne of Grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been a Priest.

The reason of this Assertion and Concession is added in the latter part of the Verse, Seeing there are Priests that offer Gifts according to the Law.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sacerdotibus existentibus, cum sint Sacerdotes, whereas there are Priests. The Apostle doth not grant that at that time when he wrote this Epistle, there were legal Priests