| 2. The state and condition of his priesthood :—If he were on the earth, or had a priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the law; if he were to have offered the same sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the earth; if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his sacrifice could not be absolutely consummated without the presentation of himself in the most holy place not made with hands.
These two things the apostle was treating of: 1. His present state and condition, as to the sanctuary wherein he administered ; which was heavenly. 2. His sacrifice and:tabernacle; which was himself. In opposition unto both these is this supposition made, “ If he were on the earth.”
This, therefore, is the full sense of this supposition, which is well to be observed, to clear the meaning of the whole verse,—which the Socinians endeavour with all their skill and force to wrest unto their heresy,—‘ If we did aver him to have such a priesthood as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the earth, and to administer in the sanctttary of the tabernacle or temple, with the blood of legal sacrifices,’ On this supposition the apostle grants
Ei wey.
"Hy ial vis.
32 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. VIII.
that “he could not be a priest.” He had not been, or could not be so much as a priest, or a priest at all in any sense. That a priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, he had proved before. And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his sacrifice, tabernacle, and sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a priest.
It will be said, that he was a priest “on the earth;” and that therein he offered his great expiatory sacrifice, in and by his own blood. And it is true. But, 1. This was not “ on the earth” in the sense of the law, which alone appointed the sacrifices on the earth; it was not in the way nor after the manner of the sacrifices of the law, which are expressed by that phrase, “on the earth.” 2. Al- though his oblation or sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth, yet the whole service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accom- plished on the earth. Had he not entered into heaven, to make a representation of his sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the high priest of the church from that offering of himself; because the church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the earth, and not afterwards to have entered the heavenly sanc- tuary to make it effectual. The high priest, on the great day of expiation, perfected his sacrifice for his own sin and the sins of the people without the tabernacle; but yet he neither could, nor would, nor ought to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the ark and mercy-seat,—the throne of grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been a priest.
The reason of this assertion and concession is added in the latter part of the verse, “ Seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”
” Ovrwy ray iepewy, “sacerdotibus existentibus,” “cum sint sacerdotes ;” ‘“‘ whereas there are priests.” The apostle doth not grant that at that time When he wrote this epistle there were legal priests “ de jure,” oftering sacrifices according to the law. “De facto,” indeed, there were yet such priests ministering in the temple, which was yet standing; but in this whole epistle, as to right and acceptance with God, he proves that their office was ceased, and their administrations useless. Wherefore dvrw» respects the legal institution of the priests, and their right to officiate then, when the Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to “ offer gifts according to the law.”
OLS ay Ay fepeds.
"Ovrwy roy ety beptwy.
i)
VER. 4.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 33
Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these
words, and the force of the reason in them: 1. Why might not the
Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according unto the law? 2. Why did he not in the first place take away and abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood?
1. I answer unto the first, That if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood here below, whilst they were priests also, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sacri- fices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them. This the apostle proves because he was of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood, in that it was appropriated unto the tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron. And therefore also he could not offer the same sacrifices with them ; for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be; for there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Yea, as we. have proved before, the introduction of a priesthood of an- other order was not only inconsistent with that priesthood, but destructive of the law itself, and all its institutions. Wherefore, whilst they continued priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his offiee had been upon the earth together with theirs, he could not be a priest among them.