SECT. 15-17.] EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. e 166
action once performed, and then ceasing to be performed, however it continues in its virtue and efficacy, is so expressed. The high priest entered into the most holy place once in the year; that is, his so do- ing was an act that was at once performed, and after that was not for that year. Hence the apostle proves the excellency of this sacrifice of Christ above those of the Aaronical priests, because they, by rea- son of their weakness and imperfection, were often offered; this of Christ, being every way complete, and of infinite efficacy, was of- fered but once, and at once, Heb. x. 1-4, etc. What sacrifice, there- fore, can this be, that was then but once offered? Doth this seem to express the continual appearance of Christ in heaven? which, if a sacrifice, is always offering, and not once offered, and so would be inferior unto them which were offered only once a year. For that which effecteth its design by being performed once a year, is more efficacious than that which must be always effecting. Besides, our apostle says expressly that the Lord Christ was “once offered to bear the sins of many,” chap. ix. 28. But this he did then, and only then, when he “ bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24; which irrefragably proves that then he was offered to God. 17. Add yet hereunto that the offering of Christ, which the apostle insists upon as his great sacerdotal act and duty, was necessarily ac- companied with suffering, and therefore was on the earth and not in heaven: Heb. ix. 25, 26, “Nor yet that he should offer himself often; ee. for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world.”” The argument of the apostle is built upon a general principle, that all sacrifice was in and by suffering. The sacrificed beast was slain, and had his blood poured out. Without this there could be no sacrifice. Therefore if Christ himself had been to be often offered, he must have often suffered. It is excepted, “ That although his offering did not consist in his sufferings, nor did they both concur at the same time, yet his suffering was previously ne- cessary, as an antecedent condition unto his offering of himself in heaven; and on that account the apostle might well conclude that if he were often to be offered, he must have often suffered.” But,— (1.) There can be no reason given, on the opinion of our adversaries, why the suffering of Christ was antecedently necessary unto that offering of himself which they imagine. At best they refer it unto an absolute free act of the will of God, which might have been otherwise, and Christ might have often offered and yet not often suffered. (2.) Christ is said not only to “offer himself,” but to be “ offered :” “ Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” verse 28. Now, though the offering of himself may be accommodated unto that presentation which he made of himself in heaven, yet his being offered to bear sins plainly includes a suffering in what he did.
166 TRUE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC, XXXI.
(3.) There were many typical sacrifices, which nothing belonging unto went beyond their suffering. Such were all the expiatory sa- crifices, or sacrifices to make atonement, whose blood was not car- ried into the sanctuary. For their slaying, the pouring out of their blood, the consumption on the altar, were all destructive unto their beings. And these sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, as our apostle testifies, chap. vil. 27, “ Who needeth not daily” (xaé nucpay) “to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” Had he intended only the sacrifice of the high priest, he could not have said that he was to offer it xaé juépuv, “daily,” when he was to do so only xas’ éwaurdy, “yearly,” chap. x. 1. It is therefore 2A, or “ daily sacrifice,” that he intends, and this was not carried on beyond suffering.
And this is yet more plainly expressed, chap. x. 11, 12, “ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” Comparing the sacrifice of Christ with these sacri- fices, he declares that they were types and representations thereof, or there would be no foundation for such a comparison, nor for the exaltation of his above them, as to its efficacy and its consequents. But there was nothing of these sacrifices carried into the holy place, nor any representation made of them therein, but in their suffering and destruction they were consummated ; for they were the sacrifices which every priest who ministered at the altar did offer either daily or on all occasions. Wherefore, if the sacrifice of Christ answered unto them, as the apostle teacheth us that it did, he offered it in his suffering, his death, and blood-shedding only. After this he entered as our high priest into the holy place not made with hands, to appear in the presence of God for us. And as this was signified by the high priest’s entering into the most holy place with the blood of the bullock and goat that were offered for a sin-offering, so it was necessary in itself unto the application of the value and efficacy of his sacrifice unto the church, according to the covenant between Father and Son before described.