Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Ὕψηλος, as may be seen in the foregoing instances, hath a double signification: 1. Of place. 2. Of state and condition.

1. If it be place that is meant, then by the heavens which he is made above, those aspectable heavens, with all their glory are intended. He is no longer on the earth, but exalted into a throne of majesty above these heavens. So it is said, that he passed through these heavens when he went into the presence of God, ch. iv. 14, 15, and there he abides. For although the heaven of heavens cannot contain him, as untothe immensity of his divine nature; yet as unto his human nature here spoken of, the heavens must receive him, until the time of the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21. He 1s in this sense no more on the earth, nor subject unto any of those inconveniences which his abode here below must be exposed unto. Yea, had he always continued here, he could not have been such a high priest as became us, as our apostle declares, ch. viii. 4.,

2. Ὕψηλος may respect state and condition, or the glorious state on the right hand of the majesty on high which he is exalted unto. And in this sense, by the heavens, than which Christ is made higher, exalted above, the angels, the sacred inhabitants of those heavenly places, are intended. And this our apostle, in other places, often insists upon asa great manifestation of the glory of Christ; see Eph. i. 21, 22; Phil. 13. 10, 11; Heb. 1. 4, 11. 7, 8. I see no reason but that both these may be included in this expression. He was so exalted as to the place of his residence from the earth, above those aspectable heavens, as withal to be placed in honour, dignity, and power above all the inhabitants of heaven, he only excepted who puts all things under him.

And so we have finished the exposition of these words, with the vindication of the proper meaning of them.

Two ends there are why the apostle gives us such a description of the high priest that became us, or which we stood in need of.

1. To manifest that the Levitical priests were no way qualified for this office, no way meet or able to bring us unto God. Something they did represent, but nothing of themselves they did effect. They all of them came short in every qualification which was necessary unto this end. They were all sinners, and living and dying on the earth, they never attained unto that condition of glory and dignity which was necessary unto the full and final discharge of that office. So he declares his mind to have been expressly in the next verses.

2. To encourage the faith of believers, by evidencing unto them, that whatever was needful in a high priest to bring them to God, and to save them to the utmost, was found in all perfection in Christ Jesus. And we may observe, that,

Obs. II. Although these properties of our high priest are principally to be considered as rendering him meet to be our high priest, yet are they also to be considered as an exemplar and idea of that holiness and innocency which we ought to be conformable unto. If we will give up ourselves to the conduct of this high priest, if by him alone we design to approach unto God; conformity unto him in holiness of nature and life, according to our measure, is indispensably required of us. None can more dishonour the Lord Christ, nor more perniciously deceive and betray their own souls, than by professing him to be their priest, with their trust thereby to be saved by him, and yet not endeavour to be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, like unto him.

Obs. III. Seeing all these properties were required unto Christ, and in him, that he might be our high priest, he was all that he is here said to be for us, and for our sakes; and benefit from them doth redound unto us. For seeing he was a priest for us, all that he was that he might be a priest, was for us also. Such a high priest became us, and such a bigh priest we have.

Obs. [V. The infinite grace and wisdom of God, are always to be admired by us in providing such a high priest as was every way meet for us, with respect unto the great end of his office, namely, the bringing of us unto himself.,

Obs. V. The dignity, duty, and safety of the gospel church, depend solely on the nature, the qualifications, and the exaltation’ of our high priest. Or our high priest every way answering the mind, the holiness, and wisdom of God; and being fit to supply all our necessities, in our whole state and condition; the work of our salvation is absolutely secured in his hand. The great design of the gospel is to satisfy believers herein. And God would have it so, that he might provide not only for our future salvation, but for our present consolation also.

Obs. VI. If such a high priest became us, was needful unto us, for the establishment of the new covenant, and the communication of the grace thereof unto the church, then all persons, Christ alone excepted, are absolutely excluded from all interest in this priesthood. He that takes upon himself to be a priest under the gospel, must be holy harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, that is, absolutely so; or he is an impostor, who endeavours to deceive the souls of men.

Obs. VII. If, therefore, we consider aright what it is that we stand in need of, and what God hath provided for us, that we may be brought unto him in his glory, we shall find it our wisdom to forego all other expectations, and to betake ourselves unto Christ alone.

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 isin those words, τῆς pera Tov νομον. For the Syriac reads them ΝΟ) ἽΠΞ mim, 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 Aoyoe, as the antecedent, and not ὁρκωμοσιας. And Erasmus renders peta τὸν νομὸν by supra legem, ‘above the law’ But others think, and that rightly, that μετα, with an accusative case, is never to be rendered by supra, or ‘above.’

Ver. 27, 28.— Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people’s, for this he did once, when he offered up himself. for the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity, but. the word of the oath, which was since the law, the Son who is perfected for evermore.

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 a one as is there described, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, for such a 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, to 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. ‘Who needeth not daily’ 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,

Ist. The manner of the negation, οὐκ exe avaykny, ‘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 tlie 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.

2dly. The second thing in these words, is the declaration of them that lay under this necessity which our high priest was not liable unto, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχίερεις, ‘as 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 offermgs and sacrifices of the people, are included herein. And itis 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. 3rdly. A threefold difference is intimated between our high priest

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, ch. x. 1—3, ‘ He offered himself.’ ‘

3. In the cause of their offerings; 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 ereatest 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 high 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 inthem. Some relief they found in them, but complete peace they did not afford. Nor can any thing 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 any thing 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 soit 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.

4ihly. 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, καθ᾽ ἡμεραν, ‘daily;’ that is, so often as occasion required, according to the law. For there is no reason to confine the apostle’s intention unto the annual expiatory sacrifice only; as though καθ᾽ ἡμεραν were the same with κατ᾽ evavtov, Heb. x. 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 πρότερον; here used, doth not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the tan, 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 tooopatoe καὶ ζωσα, ‘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, Lev. iv. 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.

6thly. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by πρότερον and emsira, ‘ 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, Lev. iv. 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 et the feast of expiation, Lev. xvi. First. He was to offer a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the people, both on the same day.

1. Ὕπερ των ἰδιων ἁμαρτιων, ‘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,’ Lev. iv. 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; των του Aaov, that is, for the whole congregation of Israel; according to the law, Lev. xvi. 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 favour, 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, John i. 17, ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” And the privilege or advancement of the church im its deliverance from those various, multiplied, obscure means of instruction, into the glorious light of the way and causes of our adoption, justification, and saltion, is inexpressibly great and full of grace. Nolonger are we now obliged to 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.

fers 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 Slichtingius on this place; and so he is also by Grotius and Hammond, which is the channel 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, acQevera, 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 any thing 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 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, rovro, ‘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 for ever; 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.’ Lev. iv. ὃ. If therefore this be to be repeated ex του κοινου, ‘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 latter, 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 hinderances to 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 to no infirmity, but what was necessary that he might be a meet high priest and sacrifice for us. For so was every thing 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 oftered for his own infirmities, that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness to death? It must be by his sufferings and death, for in and by them he offered himself to 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 to it.

Thus proceeds and argues Crellius or Slichtingius on the place:—

‘ Peccata proprie dicta, id est, divinaram legum transgressiones, cum in Christo locum non habeant ullum, 1, Necesse est ut in voce peccatorum sit improprietas, significenturque Christi infirmitates et perpessiones, 2. Qua de re jam egimus, cap. v. ver. 2,3. 3. Sic vidimus istarum infirmitatum et perpessionum contraria, sanctitatis et innocentia nomine paulo ante versu superiore describi; qui duo versiculi mutuo se illustrant: (seipsum offerens.) 4. Docet quando Christus pro se obtulerit, preces nimirum et supplicationes, ut, cap. v. ver. 7, vidimus: tunc nempe cum in 60 esset, ut seipsum Deo offerret, cum sese ad oblationem sui ipsius accingeret, hoc est, cum tanquam victima mactaretur. 5. Oblatie enim Christi sic hoc loco extendenda est ut mortem ipsius tanquam necessarium antecedens, et quoddam veluti initium complectatur. 6. Cum vero hic versiculus ex superior! commate pendeat et inferatur, vel hinc apparet, non agiisthic 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 et inculpatus, ratione morum seu actionum suarum, cum semper talis fuerit; sed quod in perpetuum ab omnibus malis et 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, Heb. v. 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, where~ unto the reader is referred.

4. The Lord Christ offered up prayers and supplications to 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 ch. v. 7.

5. He is more kind than ordinary in extending the oblation of Christ unto his death also. But he recals 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, εφαπαξ, ‘once,’ and at ‘one time.’ This, I suppose, isagreed. 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 offerig on the earth, and therein he offered for himself; that is, he did, and he did not offer bimself 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 thé high priest for himself, which was bloody.

6. The close of this 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 Slichtingius offers in this case’ Only he tells that ἁμαρτία is taken for those griefs which are commonly the punishment of sin; Rom. vi. 10. But it is a mistake; auaptia, 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 oncefor sin. He says, moreover, that profluvium mulierum is called nom, Lev. xii. 8, xv. 13, as also is the leprosy, ch. xiv. 13. But herein also he is mistaken; both the one and the other subject unto those defiling distempers, were appointed to offer a sin-oftering 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 hastened 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 peceatorum peene esse, et quos Christus occasione 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, are well understood by those who are any way skilled in the Socinian mysteries.

Hammond says the same:—‘ He both,’ saith he, ‘ oftered 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.’ Answ. 1. To make explation, 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 itis 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 [ 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.

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 razed. For it is, that the Lord Christ offered himself at the supper the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent council affirms, Sess. xxii. 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.

2. 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 éavroyv, ‘ 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 vi. 6—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 any thing 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,

Obs. I. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christhimself. 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 provés and confirms expressly. For no other high priest but such a ohe as was in himself perfectly sinless, did become us, or our state and condition. He that was otherwise could not 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 to the other, what an issue is it of pride and folly!

Obs. II. 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 to 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 to 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.

Obs. III. No sacrifice could bring us to God, and save the church _to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both priest and offering. Such a high priest became us who offered himself once for all. And we may consider, 1. That this was vuc 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 to God, are all full of mysterious wisdom and grace. All these wonders of wisdom and love, were necessary to this great end of bringing us to God. 2. Every part of this transaction, all that belongs to this sacrifice, is filled up with perfection, that no more could be required on the part of God, nor is any thing wanting to give countenance to 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 to the souls of believers! 3. A distinct consideration of the person of the priest and of his sacrifice, will evidence this truth to 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 intrusted 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.’

Obs. [V. 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, Acts xv. 10. Which the Lord Christ gives us deliverance from, Matt. xi. 27—30. |

Ver. 28—For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

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 on between him and the Hebrews who adhered to Mosaic institutions; and this was, that a high priest over the church there must be; and without such a one there is no approach to 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 acommon principle agreed on between them, whereon the apostle doth proceed.

2. He grants to them, that the high priests who officiated in the tabernacle and the temple, were called and appointed by God to 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 for ever 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 to the church, as that the whole safety, glory, and blessedness thereof did depend thereon. And this he proves by many cogent and irrefragable arguments to 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 to 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. i

4. Whereas hereon it may be said, who knows whether this change and alteration will be to the advantage of the church or not? whether it were not better to adhere to those priests which we have already, than, relinquishing them, and all benefits by them, to betake ourselves to this new high priest? The apostle, in answer to 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 to 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 apostle’s 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 acknowledgment 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.

+. The difference in their state and condition; the former had infirmities, the latter is consecrated for ever.

5. This alsois included in the words, that those of the first sort were many, men that had infirmities; he of the latter was one only. And in these things, as we shall briefly see, are 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.

Ist. The first difference is in the constituting principles of these distinct offices. That on the part of the Levitical priesthood was 6 νομος, ‘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? Καθιστησι, ‘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 suflicient toconvey 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 to the laws thereof. Hereby those other priests came so to be.

Hereunto is opposed, Aoyoe της ὅρκωμοσιας» ‘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 λογος λαληθεις δι’ ayyeAwyv, ‘ the word spoken by angels,’ ch. ii. 2.—the word of God, though spoken by them. Anda word in this sense is either a mere word of command, ora 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 tobe a priest..See the exposition on ch. v. 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 declaredin and by his oath. And herein hath it many advantages above the law, which was not so. As,

1. A high federal solemnity. Things confirmed by an oath are pecuharly 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 for ever. 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.

2dly. The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained, is included on the ene hand, and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given, whereby they were made priests: the latter was, μετα τὸν νόμον, ‘after the law,’ or the giving of it. This, I confess, doth not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the apostle’s 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 disannulled by what doth ensue. Gal. iii. 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. JI answer therefore, that what followeth after, cannot disannul 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 disannulled. 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 to the promise, which (as pe apostle proves) going before it, could not be disannulled by it.

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 main 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.

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 ita 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. or besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first promise two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation before it in the priesthood of Melchisedec; 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 herein 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.

ddly. The third difference is, that the law made av@pwzovc, ‘ men to be high priests, that is, those who were mere men, and no more. And ther fore, 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, Heb. ii. 5. In opposition hereunto, the word of the oath makes viov, ‘the Son, a 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 ceteris parem, ‘nascendi sorte,’ 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 lhe 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 etlicacy of his priesthood doth depend.

Athly. It is added in the last place, that the law made men priests, exovTac acvevelay, ἡ 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 every one 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 efid to 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, τετελειωμενον εἰς Tov awva, ‘consecrated for ever.’ 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.

Obs. V. There never was nor ever can be, any more than two sorts of priests in the church, the one made by the law, the other by the oath of God. Wherefore,

Obs. VI. 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 this, will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore,

Obs. VII. Plurality of priests under the gospel, overthrows the whole argument of the apostle im this place, and if we have yet priests that have infirmities, they are made by the law, and not by the gospel.

Obs. VIII. 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 inconceivably great.

Obs. IX. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our high priest is the Son of

Obs. X. The everlasting continuance of the Lord Christ in his office, is secured by the oath of God.

I. A farther explication of the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, or of Christ himself, as vested with that office; that is, both in his personal glory, and in the usefulness of his office to the church; above those of the order of Aaron.

Il. A farther confirmation hereof; wherein is introduced the consideration of the two covenants, the old and the new. For to the former, was the whole administration of the Levitical priests confined. Of the latter, Christ as our high priest was the mediator and surety. And therefore the apostle fully proves the excellency of. this new covenant above the old, which redounds to the glory of its mediator.

The first part is contained in the first five verses; the latter extends from thence to the end of the chapter.

In the first part, two things are designed. 1. A recapitulation of some things before delivered. 2. The addition of some farther arguments in the confirmation of the same truth, so long before insisted on.

Both of them he compriseth in three instances of the excellency of Christ in his priesthood, or in the discharge of his office.

1. In his exaltation and the place of his present residence; ver. 1.

2. In the sanctuary whereof he is a minister, and the tabernacle wherein at present he doth administer, ver. 2.

3. In the sacrifice he had to offer, or which he offered before his entrance into that sanctuary, ver. 3, which he illustrates by two especial considerations, ver. 4, 5.

Kepadaov. Syr. som, Caput; Vul. Capitulum, Summa; _ Beza, Ceterum eorum que diximus hec summa est, ‘ Moreover this is the sum of what we speak.” Summatim autem dicendo, ‘to speak briefly,’ emt τοις λεγομενοις. Syr. p1527, ‘of all these things; the head,’ chief or principal of all these things. Vul. Super ea que dicuntur; Rhem. ‘the sum concerning these things which be said,’

Towvrov exousv. Syr. ‘We have a high priest, he who sitteth; omitting this word, or including it in NyN, 18, ille.

Ver. 1.— Now of the things that are spoken, this is the sum: we have such a high priest; who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.

This first verse contains two things. 1. A preface to that part of the ensuing discourse which immediately concerns the priesthood of Christ, to 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.

I. The design of the apostle in this interlocution, (which is not unusual with him,) is to stir up the Hebrews to 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. Lest 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, que Grace dicitur avaxepaXawore, a quibusdam Latinorum enumeratio, et memoriam judicis reficit, et totam simul causam ante oculos ponit; et etiam si per singula minus moverat, turba valet. In hac, que repetimus quam brevissime dicenda sunt, et (quod Greco verbo patet) decurrendum per capita.’ How this whole course is steered by the apostle in

this place, it 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 to Mosaic institutions, and those who embrace the faith. Hence he calleth them to a renewed attention to 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.

1, ἔπι, may be put for ev, ‘in’ or ‘among;’ and then the things themselves treated of may be intended. And if so, κεφαλαιον 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 on which all other things in debate, did depend.

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. 1 incline to the latter signification of the word, respected in our translation; yet so as that the former also is true, and safely applicable to 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,

Obs. I. 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 to 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; as this way is taken once, and but once, by our apostle. When it is necessary, is left to the wisdom and choice of those who are called to this work; I mean of such who, labouring 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 on great and important occasions; the usual way of the repetition of the heads of sermons formerly preached, is in my judgment useless and unprofitable.

Obs. 11. 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 endeavour 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 on them. Wherefore they are by aH suitable means, with gravity and zeal to be called to a diligent attendance to 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.

Secondly. 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 to this high priest. 2. The general denotation of hime 3. His eminency and dignity in particular above all others.

I. Our relation to him is expressed in the word eyouev, ‘ 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 to him in the discharge of that office; ‘Such a high priest became us, Heb. vil, 26. ‘We have not a high priest that cannot,’ Xc. ch. iv. 15. ‘The high priest of our profession,’ ch. 11, 1. And here, ‘ We have such a high priest.’ And to the same purpose, ‘ We have an altar,’ ch. xii. 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 priest 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 to 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, nor visible deities. So hard was it to cail off the carnal minds of men, from things visible and sensible in divine worship, to 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, in various degrees, to the same kind of worship, 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 observance of the institutions of Christ, to all the pretences of glory and beauty pleaded to be in their outward forms. So the apostle here, to evince the dignity of the Christian church against the unbelief of the Jews, pleads their relation to 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 a high priest,’ and that such a 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 to him, unless ‘we have a high priest,’ we are not concerned therein. Many do give their assent to this truth, that Christ is a 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, to 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 a high priest they believe, but what it is for them to have a 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 a high priest or not, really and substantially, by the use which we make of him as such in all our approaches to God. For he presides over the whole house of God, and all the sacred services thereof. None can come to 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. Withont a daily improvement by faith of the office of Christ unto these ends, it cannot be said that we have a high priest. |

᾿ς 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 rovovrov. He doth not now only say that ‘ we have a high priest;’ nor ‘ another high priest,’ not according to the ordinances of the law, which he had proved before, from the type of Melchisedec, and the testimony of the Psalmist; but moreover such a one as hath that dignity, and those excellencies which he now ascribes to him, The salvation of the church doth not depend merely on its having a high priest, which yet in itself is absolutely necessary to the church, but on his dignity and excellency, his exaltation and glory. Wherefore it is affirmed of him, that he is such a 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 theapostle in them; and, 2. Their particular interpretation.

First. 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 propitiatery sacrifice, was as un- to his outward state and condition, inferior unto the Levitical high priests, who were in great honour 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 honour 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 clory 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.

Secondly. As to the words themselves, we may observe that the apostle three times in this Epistle maketh use of them with some little variety; ch.1. 8, xi. 2, and in this place. Ch.1. 3, ‘ He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high:’ where there is no mention of the throne. Ch. xii. 2, ‘He is set 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 second, 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.

Εκαθισεν. 1. The manner of his enjoyment of this dignity and glory is expressed in the word εκαθισεν, ‘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 typified by the Levitical priests, so in what they could not reach unto, he was represented in Melchisedec, who was both a king and a priest. And hence he is prophesied of as a ‘priest upon his throne,’ Zech. vi. 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, ev δεξιᾳ, ‘at the right hand.’ See the exposition hereof, ch. 1. 3.

4, This throne is here said to be, της μεγαλωσυνης, 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 set 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 a holy adoration of the tremendous invisible glory which is intended. And this is 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 his nature of his espe cial offices do require. In this state doth he 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 ev ovpavorc, ‘in the heavens;’ as in the other place ev ὕψηλοις, ‘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. Butit is that which the Scripture calls the heaven of heavens, 1 Kings vill. 27, wherein is the especial residence and manifestation of the glorious presence of God. With respect hereunte our Saviour hath taught us to call on our Father who is in heaven. And from the words we may observe, that,

Obs. III. 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 for ever. 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 himself the form of a servant, Phil. 11. 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 lustre. Those indeed who believed on him, ‘ saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, Johni. 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 to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,’ Rom. i. 4.

2. The person of Christ, as to his divine nature, was always on the throne, and is incapable 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 iii. 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 i. 18; Matt. xi. 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 are often called his coming down from heaven, Gen. xviii. 21. Isa. Ixiv. 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 glory 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 xxiv. 26; John xvii. 24; Acts ii. 33; Actsv.31; Rom. xiv.9; Eph. 1. 20— 23; Phil.ii. 9—!1; Heb 1.3, xii.2; 1 Pet.1.21; Rev. v.9—13. 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 mhesion. 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 any more 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 to 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, Heb. ii. 16. This renders his glory in his exaltation, of another kind than that of the most glorious creatures, in their best condition.

3. 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 Heb. 1. 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 in heaven 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,

Ist. This is a manifest pledge and evidence of the absolute perfeetion of his oblation, and that by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified. When the high priest of old appeared for a while 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, and now sitting down for ever 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.

2dly. By his glorious power, he makes all things subservient to 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,

3rdly. 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 fe con- cern in this world, and that alone which their minds are principally exercised about. And what greater security hereof can they have, than the interest and glory which this their high priest hath in heaven? 1 John 1]. 1, 2.

Ver. 2. 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.

Ver. 2.—A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

1. What is affirmed of our high priest, namely, that he was a ‘ minister of the sanctuary, and of 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.’

2. The assignation and limitation of his discharge of that office; it is ‘ the sanctuary and true tabernacle.’

First. It is affirmed, that he is λειτουργος, “ ἃ 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 λειτουργος, a public minister for the church.

expressly spoken of here as a priest; it is a name of his priestly office, wherein he acts towards God. Nor is he any where called or said to be λειτουργος; in any of his actings from God towards us; although he be said therein to be διακονος; Rom. xv. 8, that is, he was so in the days of his flesh, but that name now no way belongeth to him, He is not, therefore, styled a minister, because he executeth the purposes of God towards us, as Slichtingius 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 inthe 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 to us. For the whole administration of things sacred between God and the church, is committed to him. And we must observe, that

Obs. I. 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 to 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 to it. For in these things doth the glory of his love and grace most eminently appear. Antecedently to 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. 11. 6—9. And as he emptied himself, and laid aside his glory for a season, to undertake the work of mediation; so now he hath resumed 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.

Ist. He is so, Των ἁγιων. 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 ἅγιοι, 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. Ἴων ἁγιων, from aya, of the neuter gender, may have a double signification. 1. Of holy things in general. 2. Of holy places.

1. Of things, so the Vul. 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 margm. And the sense is true, if the signification of the word be extended to all holy things. For the ministration of them all is committed to Jesus Christ. But the word hath yet a more peculiar signification.

2. The inmost part of the tabernacle, our apostle calls aya ἁγίων, Heb. ix. 3, that is, mw7p wip, “ the holy of holies,’ the most holy place. And absolutely he calls it aya, ‘ the holies,’ Heb. ix. 8, 12, 94, 25, xiii. 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, Heb. x. 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 to 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, Ps. cii. 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, Heb. ix. 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 for ever, always representing the efficacy of the blood whereby atonement was made for all our sins.

Obs. I, As no interposition between heaven and us should discourage us, whilst 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 veil 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.

Sally, The second part of the limitation of the ministration of our high priest is in these words, καὶ της σκηνῆς τῆς adnSwye, ‘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 to that which is umbratile, transitory, and figurative. 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 to 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 vi. 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 to eternal life.

But what the tabernacle here intended is, deserves our diligent inquiry. 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 to the effects of it, is not confined to 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 to him in heaven and earth, and his being given to be the head over all things to the church.—l see nothing absurd in this opinion, nor contradictory to 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; now it did not typify the fabric of the universe, but that especial pattern which was shown to 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 to a tabernacle, Isa. xxxii. 20, liv. 2. And herein doth God dwell, and walk amongst men. MHereof 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 to. Neither was the tabernacle of old, which is here alluded to, 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 to the sanctuary as well as to 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 Gicumenius, 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 ch. ix. 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,

Ist. 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 in answer to 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 to 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,

2dly. In answer hereunto, when he was incarnate, and came into the world, it is said, that ἐσκηνωσε; ‘ He fixed his tabernacle,’ among us, John i. 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 on him, fixing his tent thereby among men. What was the pattern of this tabernacle shown to Moses on the mount, we must inquire, on ver. 5.

3dly. He himself called his own body his temple, with respect to the temple at Jerusalem which was of the same nature and use with the tabernacle, John 11. 19, 22, - And this he did, because his body was that true substantial temple and tabernacle whereof he was the minister..

4thly. That is the true tabernacle which God truly and really i - habiteth, 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. xxv. 8; Rev. xxi. 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, isthe true tabernacle. But this is in Christ alone, ‘ for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ Col. 11. 9. Thus the human nature of Christ is that true substantial tabernacle, wherein God dwelleth personally.

5thly. He is the only way and means of our approach to 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 minister, 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. MHowbeit 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. ii. 17. No one of them was able to represent the fulness 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.