VER. 12.-Ουδε δι' αἱματος τραγων και μοσχων, δια δε του ίδιου αίματος εισήλθεν εφαπαξ εις τα άγια, αιωνίαν λυτρωσιν εὑραμενος.

Ata de Tov idiov aiμaros, Syr. 7, by the blood of his own soul or life.' He made his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10. Blood is the life of the sacrifice. Epana. Syr. NT, one time;' not many times, not once every year, as they did under the law. Es ra âyia, Syr. p, into the house of the sanctuary,' less properly; for by that expression, the old tabernacle is intended; but the apostle respects heaven itself, in sancta, sancta sanctorum, sacrarium. That which answers unto the most holy place in the tabernacle, where was the throne of God, the ark, and mercy-seat. Awviav Avrρwσiv evpaμevoç. Vul. Lat. Æterna redemptione inventa; æternam redemptionem nactus; æterna redemptione acquisita;' most properly, and according unto the use of the word in all good authors.

VER. 12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the (most) holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

In this verse, the apostle enters directly on the consideration of the great mystery of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, especially as to the sacrifice he offered to make atonement for sin. But the method in which the apostle proceedeth is what he was led to, by the proposal he had made of the types of it under the law. Wherefore, he begins with the complement or consequent of it, in answer unto that act or duty of the high priest, wherein the glory of his office was most conspicuous, which he had newly mentioned.

And here, because part of our design in the exposition of this whole Epistle is to free and vindicate the sense of it from the corrupt glosses which the Socinians, and some that follow them, have cast upon it; I shall on this great head of the sacrifice of Christ particularly insist on the removal of these. And indeed, the substance of all that is scattered up and down their writings, against the proper sacrifice of Christ, and the true nature of his sacerdotal office, is comprised in the comment on this Epistle, composed by Crellius and Slichtingius. I shall, therefore, first examine their corrupt wrestings of the words, and false interpretations of them, before I proceed unto their exposition.

They begin, Nunc etiam opponit sacrificium ipsius Christi, sacrificio pontificis antiqui.' This is the rowrov Evdos of their interpretation of this and the following verses. If this be not so, all that they afterwards assert or infer from it, falls of itself. But this is most false. There is not any thing directly, either of the sacrifice of Christ or of the high priest, but only what was consequent unto the one and the other: yea, there is that which excludes them from being intended. The entrance of the high priest into the holy place was not his sacrifice. For his sacrifice is supposed to be offered before, in the virtue whereof, and with the memorial of which, he so entered; that is, with the blood of goats and calves. For all sacrifices were offered at the

brazen altar. And that of the high priest on the day of expiation, is expressly declared so to have been, Lev. xvi. And the entrance of Christ into heaven was not his sacrifice, nor the oblation of himself; for he offered himself unto God, with strong cries and supplications; but his entrance into heaven was triumphant. He entered into heaven by virtue of his sacrifice, as we shall see; but his entrance into heaven was not the sacrifice of himself.

They add in explication hereof:- Pontifex antiquus per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum ingrediebatur in sancta, Christus verò non per sanguinem tam vilem, sed pretiosissimum; quod alius esse non potuit quam ipsius proprius. Nam sanguis quidem humanus sanguine brutorum, sed sanguis Christi, sanguine cæterorum omnium hominum longe est pretiosior; cum ipse quoque cæteris hominibus omnibus imò omnibus creaturis longe sit præstantior, Deoque charior et proprior, utpote unigenitus ejus filius.' What they say of the preciousness of the blood of Christ above that of brute creatures, is true: but they give two reasons for it, which comprise not the true reason of its excellency, as unto the ends of his sacrifice. 1. They say, it was the blood of a man. 2. That this man was more dear to God than all other creatures, as his only begotten Son. Take these last words in the sense of the Scripture, and the true reason of the preciousness and efficacy of the blood of Christ in his sacrifice, is assigned. Take them in their sense, and it is excluded. The Scripture by the Son of God intends his eternal generation as the Son of the Father; they intend only his nativity of the blessed virgin, with his exaltation after his resurrection.

true excellency and efficacy of the blood of Christ in this sacrifice, was from his divine person, whereby God purchased his church with his own blood, Acts xx. 28.

Nor do I know of what consideration the preciousness of the blood of Christ can be with them in this matter; for it belonged not unto his sacrifice or the oblation of himself, as they pretend. For they would have the offering of himself to consist only in his entrance into heaven, and appearing in the presence of God, when, as they also imagine, he had neither flesh nor blood.

They proceed unto a speculation about the use and signification of the preposition, per, 'by,' or dia:- Notandum est autorem, ut elegantiæ istius comparationis consuleret, usum esse in priori membro voce, per; licet pontifex legalis non tantum per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum, hoc est, fuso prius sanguine istorum animalium, seu interveniente sanguinis eorum fusione, sed etiam cum ipsorum sanguine in sancta fuerit ingressus, ver. 7. Verùm quia in Christi sacrificio similitudo eousque extendi non potuit, cum Christus non alienum sed suum sanguinem fuderit, nec sanguinem suum post mortem, sed seipsum, et quidem jam immortalem, depositis carnis et sanguinis exuviis, quippe quæ regnum Dei possidere nequeant, in cœlesti illo tabernaculo obtulerit; proindeque non cum sanguine, sed tantum fuso prius sanguine, seu interveniente sanguinis sui fusione in sancta fuerit ingressus; idcirco autor minus de legali pontifice dixit quam res erat: vel potius ambiguitate particulæ, per, quæ etiam idem quod, cum, in sacris literis significare solet, comparationis concinnitati consulere voluit.'

The design of this whole discourse is to overthrow the nature of the sacrifice of Christ, and to destroy all the real similitude between it and the sacrifice of the high priest; the whole of its sophistry being animated by a fancied signification of the preposition per, or falsely pretended reason of the use of it by the apostle. For, 1. The high priest did indeed carry of the blood of the sacrifice into the holy place, and so may be said to enter into it with blood; as it is said he did it, not without blood,' ver. 7. Yet is it not that which the apostle hath here respect unto; but it was the sacrifice at the altar, where the blood of it was shed and offered, which he intends, as we shall see immediately. 2. There is, therefore, nothing less ascribed unto the high priest herein than belonged unto him; for all that is intended, is, that he entered into the holy place by virtue of the blood of goats and calves, which was offered at the altar; less than his due is not ascribed unto him, to make the comparison fit and meet, as is boldly pretended. Yea, 3. The nature of the comparison used by the apostle, is destroyed by this artifice; especially if it be not considered as a mere comparison, but as the relation that was between the type and the antitype. For that is the nature of the comparison that the apostle makes between the entrance of the high priest into the holy place, and the entrance of Christ into heaven. That there may be such a comparison, that there may be such a relation between these things, it is needful that they should really agree in that wherein they are compared, and not by force or artifice be fitted to make some kind of resemblance, the one of the other. For it is to no purpose to compare things together which disagree in all things; much less can such things be the types one of another. Wherefore, the apostle declares and allows a treble dissimilitude in the comparates, or between the type and the antitype. For Christ entered by his own blood; the high priest, by the blood of calves and goats: Christ, only once; the high priest every year: Christ, into heaven; the high priest, into the tabernacle made with hands. But in other things he confirms a similitude between them; namely, in the entrance of the high priest into the holy place by the blood of his sacrifice, or with it. But by these men this is taken away, and so no ground of any comparison left; only the apostle makes use of an ambiguous word, to frame an appearance of some similitude in the things compared, whereas, indeed, there is none at all. For to these ends, he says, by the blood,' whereas he ought to have said, 'with the blood;' but if he had said so, there would have been no appearance of any similitude between the things compared. For they allow not Christ to enter into the holy place, by or with his own blood, in any sense; not by virtue of it, as offered in sacrifice for us; nor to make application of it unto us, in the fruits of his oblation for us. And what similitude is there between the high priest entering into the holy place, by the blood of the sacrifice that he had offered, and the Lord Christ's entering into heaven without his own blood, or without any respect unto the virtue of it, as offered in sacrifice? 3. This notion of the sacrifice or oblation of Christ, to consist only in his appearance in heaven without flesh or blood, as they speak, overthrows all the relation of types or representations between it and the sacrifices of old. Nay, on that supposition they were suited

6

rather to deceive the church than instruct it in the nature of the great expiatory sacrifice that was to be made by Christ. For the universal testimony of them all was, that atonement and expiation of sin was to be made by blood, and no otherwise. But according unto these men, Christ offered not himself unto God for the expiation of our sins, until he had neither flesh nor blood. 4. They say, it is true he offered himself in heaven, fuso prius sanguine.' But it is an order of time, and not of causality, which they intend. His blood was shed before, but therein was no part of his offering or sacrifice. But herein they expressly contradict the Scripture and themselves. It is by the offering of Christ that our sins are expiated and redemption obtained. This the Scripture doth so expressly declare, as that they cannot directly deny it. But these things are constantly ascribed unto the blood of Christ and the shedding of it; and yet they would have it that Christ offered himself then only, when he had neither flesh nor blood.

They increase this confusion in their ensuing discourse. Aliter enim ex parte Christi res sese habuit, quam in illo antiquo. In antiquo illo, ut in aliis quæ pro peccato lege divina constituta erant, non offerebatur ipsum animal mactatum, hoc est, nec in odorem suavitatis, ut Scriptura loquitur, adolebatur, sed renes ejus et adeps tantum; nec inferebatur in sancta, sed illius sanguis tantum. In Christi autem sacrificio, non sanguis ipsius quem mactatus effudit, sed ipse offerri, et in illa sancta cœlestia ingredi debuit. Idcirco infra, ver. 14, dicitur, seipsum, non vero sanguinem suum Deo obtulisse; licet alias comparatio cum sacrificiis expiatoriis postulare videretur, ut hoc posterius potius doce

retur.

1. Here they fully declare, that according to their notion, there was indeed no manner of similitude between the things compared; but that, as to what they are compared in, they were opposite, and had no agreement at all. The ground of the comparison in the apostle, is, that they were both by blood; and this alone. For herein he allows a dissimilitude, in that Christ's was by his own blood, that of the high priest's by the blood of calves and goats. But according to the sense of these men, herein consists the difference between them, that the one was with blood, and the other without, which is expressly contradictory to the apostle.

2. What they observe of the sacrifices of old, that not the bodies of them, but only the kidneys and fat were burned, and the blood only carried into the holy place, is neither true, nor any thing to their purpose. For, 1. The whole bodies of the expiatory sacrifices, were burnt and consumed with fire; and this was done without the camp, Lev. xvi. 27, to signify the suffering of Christ, and therein the offering of his body without the city, as the apostle observes, ch. xiii. 11, 12. 2. They allow of no use of the blood in sacrifices, but only as to the carrying of it into the holy place; which is expressly contradictory unto the main end of the institution of expiatory sacrifices. For it was, that by their blood atonement should be made on the altar, Lev. xvii. 11. Wherefore, there is no relation of type and antitype, no similitude for a ground of comparison between the sacrifice of Christ, and that of the high priest, if it was not made by his blood. 3. Their observation,

that in ver. 14, the Lord Christ is said to offer himself, and not to offer his blood, is of no value. For in the offering of his blood, Christ offered himself; or he offered himself, by the offering of his blood; his person giving the efficacy of a sacrifice unto what he offered. And this is undeniably asserted in that very verse. For the purging of our consciences from dead works, is the expiation of sin. But Christ, even according to the Socinians, procured the expiation of sin, by the offering of himself. Yet is this here, expressly assigned unto his blood; 'How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your consciences from dead works!' Wherefore, in the offering of himself, he offered his blood.

They add, as the exposition of these words, 'He entered into the holiest;' Ingressus in sancta, necessario ad sacrificium istud requiritur. Nec ante oblatio, in qua sacrificii ratio potissimum consistit, peragi potuit, cum ea in sanctis ipsis fieri debuerit. Hinc manifestum est pontificis nostri oblationem et sacrificium non in cruce, sed in cœlis peractam esse, et adhuc peragi.

Answ. 1. What they say at first, is true; but what they intend and infer from thence, is false. It is true that the entrance into the holy place, and carrying of the blood in thither, did belong unto the anniversary sacrifice intended. For God had prescribed that order unto its consummation and complement. But that the sacrifice or oblation did consist therein, is false. For it is directly affirmed, that both the bullock and goat for the sin-offering, were offered before it at the altar, Lev. xvi. 6, 9.

2. It doth not, therefore, hence follow, as is pretended, that the Lord Christ offered not himself a sacrifice unto God on the earth, but did so in heaven only; but the direct contrary doth follow. For the blood of the sin-offering was offered on the altar, before it was carried into the holy place; which was the type of Christ's entrance into heaven.

3. What they say, that the sacrifice of Christ was performed or offered in heaven, and is yet so offered, utterly overthrows the whole nature of his sacrifice. For the apostle every-where represents that to consist absolutely in one offering, once offered, not repeated or continued. Herein lies the foundation of all his arguments for its excellency and efficacy. Of this, the making it to be nothing but a continued act of power in heaven, as is done by them, is utterly destructive.

What they add in the same place about the nature of redemption, will be removed in the consideration of it immediately. In the close of the whole, they affirm, that the obtaining of everlasting salvation by Christ, was not an act antecedent unto his entering into heaven, as the word seems to import, evpauevos, 'having obtained;' but it was done by his entrance itself into that holy place, whence they would rather read the word Eupauevos in the present tense, obtaining.' But whereas our redemption is every-where constantly in the Scripture assigned unto the blood of Christ, and that alone, Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Rev. v. 9, 'hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood;' it is too great a confidence to confine this work unto his entrance into heaven, without any offering of his blood, and when he had no blood.