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 be- ° ing 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,” verse 7: yet is it not that which the apostle hath here respect unto; but it is 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 as- cribed 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 com- parison used by the apostle is destroyed by this artifice; especially if it be considered as a mere comparison, and not 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 arti- fice 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 goats and calves; Christ only once, the high priest every year; Christ into
VER. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. O75
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 unto 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 entering into heaven without his own blood, or any respect unto the virtue of it as offered in sacrifice? 4, This notion of the sacrifice or oblation of Christ to con- sist 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 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 expia- tion of sin was to be made by blood, and no otherwise; but accord- ing unto these men, ‘Christ offered not himself unto God for the expiation of our sins until he had neither flesh nor blood. 5. 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, they say, was no part of his
offering or sacrifice, But herein they expressly contradict the Scrip-
ture and themselves. It is by the offering of Christ that our sins are expiated, and redemption obtained, This the Scripture doth so ex-
‘ pressly 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 que pro peccato lege divina constituta erant, non offerebatur ipsum animal mactatum, hoc est, nec in odorem suavilatis, ut Scriptura loquitur, adolebatur, sed renes ejus et adeps tantum; nee inferebatur in sancta, sed illius sanguis tantum. In Christi autem sacrificio, non sanguis ipsius quem mactatus effudit, d ipse offerri, et in illa sancta ccelestia ingredi debuit. Idcirco