276 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. IX.
infra ver. 14, dicitur, seipsum, non vero sanguinem suum Deo obtulisse; licet alias comparatio cum sacrificiis expiatoriis postulare videretur, ut hoc posterius potius doceretur.”
1. Here they fully declare, that, according to their notion, there was indeed no manner of similitude between the things compared, but that, as to what they are compared in, they were opposite, and had no agreement at all. The ground of the comparison in the apostle is, that they were both by blood, and this alone. For herein he allows a dissimilitude, in that Christ’s was “by his own blood,” that of the high priest “by the blood of goats and calves.” But according unto the sense of these men, herein consists the difference _ between them, that the one was with blood, and the other without ait; which is expressly contradictory to the apostle.
2. What they observe of the sacrifices of old, that not the bodzes of them, but only the kidneys and fat were burned, and the blood only carried into the holy place, is neither true nor any thing to their purpose. Tor, (1.) The whole bodies of the expiatory sacri- fices were burnt and consumed with fire; and this was done without the camp, Lev. xvi. 27, to signify the suffering of Christ, and therein the offermg of his body without the city, as the apostle observes, Heb, xiii. 11, 12. (2.) They allow of no use of the blood im sacri- fices, but only as to the carrying of it into the holy place: which is expressly contradictory unto the main end of the institution of ex- platory sacrifices; for it was that by their blood atonement should be made on the altar, Lev. xvii. 11. Wherefore there is no relation of type and antitype, no similitude for a ground of comparison between the sacrifice of Christ and that of the high priest, if it was not made by his blood. (3.) Their observation, that in verse 14 the Lord Christ is said to offer himself, and not to offer has blood, is of no value. For in the offering of his blood Christ offered him- self, or he offered himself by the offering of his blood; his person giving the efficacy of a sacrifice unto what he offered. And this is undeniably asserted in that very verse. For the “purging of our consciences from dead works,” is the expiation of sin; but Christ, even according to the Socinians, procured the expiation of sin by the offering of himself; yet is this here expressly assigned unto his blood, “ How much more shall the blood of Cbrist...... purge your conscience from dead works?” Wherefore in the offering of himself he offered his blood.
They add, as the exposition of these words, “ He entered into the holiest ;’—“‘ Ineressus in sancta, necessario ad sacrificium ‘istud re- quiritur. Nec ante oblatio, in qua sacrificii ratio potissimum con- sistit, peragi potuié, cum ea in sanctis ipsis fieri debuerit. Hine manifestum est pontificis nostri oblationem et sacrificium non in cruce, sed in ccelis peractam esse, et adhuc peragi.”
VER. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 270
Ans. 1. What they say at first is true; but what they intend and infer from thence is false. It is true that the entrance into the holy place, and carrying of the blood in thither, did belong unto the anniversary sacrifice intended; for God had prescribed that order
“unto its consummation and complement. But that the sacrifice or oblation did consist therein is false; for it is directly affirmed that both the bullock and goat for the sin-offering were offered before it, at the altar, Lev. xvi. 6, 9.
2. It doth not therefore hence follow, as is pretended, that the Lord Christ offered not himself a sacrifice unto God on the earth, but did so in heaven only; but the direct contrary doth follow. For the blood of the sin-oftering was offered on the altar, before it was carried into the holy place; which was the type of Christ’s entrance into heaven,
-3. What they say, that the sacrifice of Christ was performed or offered in heaven, and is yet so offered, utterly overthrows the whole nature of his sacrifice. For the apostle everywhere represents that to consist absolutely in one offering, once offered, not repeated or continued. Herein lies the foundation of all his arguments for its excellency and efficacy. Hereof the making of it to be nothing but a continued act of power in heaven, as is done by them, is utterly destructive.
What they add in the same place about the nature of redemp- tion, will be removed in the consideration of it immediately. In
_ the close of the whole they affirm, that the obtaining of everlasting salvation by Christ was not an act antecedent unto his entering into heaven, as the word seems to import,—eipdwevos, “ having obtained ;” but it was done by his entrance itself into that holy place; whence they would rather read the word sipéuevos in the present tense, “obtaining.” But whereas our redemption is everywhere constantly in the Scripture assigned unto the blood of Christ, and that alone,— Eph. i 7; Col. i 14; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Rev. v. 9, “Hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood,’—it is too great a confidence, to confine this work unto his entrance into heaven, without any offering of his blood, and when he had no blood to offer. And in this place, the “redemption obtained” is the same upon the matter with the “purg- ing of our consciences from dead works,” verse 14, which is ascribed directly unto his blood.