fore, to 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 infirmities and sufferings, as he and his followers explain themselves. But nothing can be more abhorrent from truth and piety than this assertion: for,

1. If Christ offered for himself, 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 no where countenances; viz. that by sins, "infirmities or miseries" are intended.

2. The sole reason pretended in favor of this absurd assertion is, that the article (T870) this, must answer to the whole preceding proposition as its antecedent. But to answer the whole antecedent in both its parts, it is indispensably necessary that he must, as they did, offer two distinct offerings, the first for himself, and the other for the people. But this is expressly contradictory to what is here affirmed, that he offered himself once only; and if but once, he could not offer for himself AND for the people, which none could do.

3. This insinuation not only enervates, but is contradictory to the principal design of the apostle in the verse foregoing and 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 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 to this interpretation, no such thing follows; but, notwith

1

standing all qualifications, he had need to offer for his "own sins." Wherefore the whole design of the apostle in these verses is by such interpretation utterly perverted and overthrown.

14. Again; when those priests offered for their "own sins," their sins were of the same nature with those of the people, Lev. iv, 3. If therefore this be repeated anew, "This he did when he offered," &c. sins being expressed only in the first place, and understood in the latter; sins properly so called must be intended, which is the height of blasphemy.

5. If Christ offered for his own infirmities, then those infirmities were hindrances to his offering for others. For that is the only reason why he should offer for their removal. But this is so far otherwise that indeed what infirmity he had was even: necessary for a meet high priest and sacrifice; for so was every thing that is inseparable from human nature; which consideration is utterly destructive of this figment.

6. Besides; this imagination will admit of no tolerable sense in its exposition or application. For how can we conceive that Christ offered for his own infirmities, that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness to death? It must be by his sufferings and death; for by them he offered himself to God. But this is absurd and foolish; by his sufferings he offered for his sufferings! What he offered for, he took away, as he did "the sins of the people;" but his own sorrows he took not away, but underwent them all.

7. It is contradictory to the principal maxim of the Socinians themselves, with respect to the priesthood of Christ; for, they maintain, that this one perfect offering or expiatory sacrifice was in heaven only, and not on earth. But he could not at his appearance in the holy

VOL. III.

54

place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all passed and finished, himself being exalted in immortality and glory. Christ offered himself (Dana) once, saith the apostle; at one time. This 1 suppose is agreed. Then he "offered for himself, and his own sins," or not at all, for he offered but once, and at one time; where then did he thus offer himself, and when? In heaven upon his ascension, say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? "On the earth." Then he offered himself twice. No, by no means, he offered not himself on the earth; how then did he offer for himself on the earth? He did not indeed offer himself on the earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the earth, and therein he offered for himself; that is, he did, and he did not offer himself upon the earth!

§4. The way and manner of Christ's offering is directly opposed to the frequency of the legal sacrifices repeated daily as there was occasion. Those high priests offered (al' nueрav) daily, on all occasions; he (εQara) once only. And cannot but observe, by the way, that this assertion is no less absolutely exclusive of the missatical sacrifices of the Roman priests, than it is of the Levitical sacrifices of the high priest of the Jewish church. In their mass itself they expressly "offer it to God a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead;" and this they do a thousand times more frequently, than the expiatory sacrifices were among the Jews. Whatever ends they therefore fancy to 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 Christ offered be often offered, and had need so to be, the whole argument to prove the excellence of his priesthood, in that he offer

and

ed himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifice, falls to the ground. And hence also, that Christ offered himself at the supper the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent council affirms, Sess. xx, cap. 1; is to give the apostle the lie.

What he offered is expressed in the last place, and therein the reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those priests did. And this gives the highest preference of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For these priests had nothing of their own to offer, but Christ had that which was originally and absolutely his own, HIMSELF, a sacrifice able to atone for all the sins of mankind.

§5. (II.) Hence we may observe,

1. God requireth our faith and obedience in nothing but what is at once absolutely needful for us, and highly reasonable to every enlightened mind. Such was this priesthood of Christ, now proposed to the faith of the church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.

2. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. As the first part of this assertion declares the insufficiency of the Jewish priests, so doth the latter the vain pretence of the priests of Rome. The former the apostle proves and confirms expressly; and the latter is, on many accounts, 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!

3. The excellency of Christ's person and priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical priesthood was obliged to. No purifications, repetitions, succession, &c. belong to him,

4. 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 an High Priest became us who offered himself once for all. How precious is a view of the glory of this mistery; how satisfactory to the souls of believers! What could not this priest prevail for in his interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause entrusted in any other hand, what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make atonement for? What sin, or whose, could it not expiate? Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world!"

VERSE 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.

$1. The subject stated. 2. (I.) The different means of constituting the differ ent priests. $3. (11.) The different times. $4. (III.) The difference of the persons. $5, (IV.) The difference in their state and condition. §6. Obser

vations.

§1. THE apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his preceding discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper foundation, which all along he hath built and proceeded on, with wonderful brevity in an ele gant antithesis; wherein he considers,

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.