lis yap &pysepevs,—that is, Sinan 3 23 , “every chief” or “great priest.” Or as the Syriac, 82233 27 22, “ prince” or “chief of the priests.” The first mention of a high priest is Lev. xxi. 10, YHND bin 1313, “the priest that is great among his brethren.” LXX., 6 iepeds 6 uéyas ard ray ddeXpdv adrod. Jun., “sa- cerdos qui maximus est fratrum suorum.” All the males of the family of Aaron were equal, and brethren, as to the priesthood; but there was one who was the head and prince of the rest, whose office was not distinct from theirs, but in the discharge of it, and preparation for it there were many things peculiarly appropriated unto him. And these things are distinctly appointed and enumerated in several places. ‘The whole office was firstly vested in him, the remainder of the priests being as it were his present assistants, and a nursery for a future succession. The whole nature of the type was preserved in him alone, But as in one case our apostle tells us of these high priests themselves, that by the law they “ were many,”—that is, in succession one after another, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death,” Heb. vii. 23, (one single high priest had been sufficient to have represented the priesthood of Christ,
las &pysepeds.
VER. 1.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 443
but because God would have that done constantly during the con- tinuance of that church-state, and every individual person of them died in his season, they were to be multiplied by succession ;) so because of their weakness, and the multiplied carnal services which they had to attend unto, no one man was able to discharge the whole office, there were others therefore added unto the high priest for the time being, as his assistants, which were so far also types of Christ as they were partakers of his office. But because the office was prin- cipally collated on and vested in the high priest, and because many important parts of the duty of it were appropriated unto him; as also, because the glorious vestments peculiar to the office, made “for glory and for beauty,” to represent the excellency and holiness of the person of Christ, were to be worn by none but him; he alone is singled out as the principal representative of the Lord Christ in this office,
And the high priest was a single person, there was but one at one time, the better to type out the office of Christ. It is true in the gospel there is mention ray dpyseptwy, of the “high priests” that then were, Matt. ii. 4, xvi. 21, which we render “ chief priests.” So Sceva, the father of the vagabond exorcists, is said to be dpysepeds, Acts xix. 14, But these were only such as were éx yévous d&pyis- parixod, Acts iv. 6, of the stock and near kindred of him who was at present high priest, or of that family wherein at present the high priesthood was; for out of them in an ordinary course a suc- cessor was to be taken. It may be, also, that those who were the heads or chiefs of the several orders or courses of the priests were then so called. But absolutely by the law the high priest was but one at one time.
And it is of the high priest according to the law of Moses that the apostle speaks. Grotius thinks otherwise: “ Non tantum legem hie respicit; sed et morem ante legem, cum aut primogeniti famili- arum, aut & populis electi reges, inirent sacerdotium ;”—“ He respects not only the law, but the manner before the law, when the first- born of the families, or kings chosen by the people, took and exer- cised the priesthood.” But it is of a high priest distinctly concerning whom the apostle speaks; and that there were any such among the people of God, either by natural descent or the consent of many, before the law, is not true. And this supposition is contrary to the design of the apostle, who treats with the Hebrews about the pri- vileges and priesthood which they enjoyed by virtue of the law of Moses. So he says expressly, chap. vii. 11, “If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood.” That is it whereof he speaks, And verse 28, “The law maketh men high priests.” He discourseth of the priests appointed by the law, that is, of Moses, and of them only.
Some expositors of the Roman church, as our Rhemists, take
444 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cHAP. Vv.
occasion to assert the necessity of a Christian priesthood to offer sacrifices to God, as also to dispose of all things wherein the worship of God is concerned, and to reprove kings and princes if they inter- pose aught therein, it being a matter wherewith they have not any thing to do. But they cannot really imagine that the apostle had the least intention to teach any such thing in this place; and there- fore the most sober interpreters amongst them do confine their dis- courses unto the Levitical priesthood. Yea, indeed, the purpose of the apostle is to prove that all priesthood properly so called, and all proper sacrifices to be offered up by virtue of that office, were issued in the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, seeing the sole use and end of them were to represent and prefigure these in the church. And to deny them now to be passed away, or to plead the continuance of any other proper priesthood and sacrifice, is to deny that Jesus is come in the flesh; which is “that spirit of antichrist,” 1 John iv. 3.