Secondly, We must consider the things themselves.
First, The subject spoken of, and whereunto the effect mentioned
_ is ascribed, is “ the blood of Christ.” The person unto evs *’ whom these things relate is Christ. I have given an account before, on sundry occasions, of the great variety
used by the apostle in this epistle in the naming of him. Anda peculiar reason of every one of them is to be taken from the place — where it is used. Here he calls him Christ; for on his being Christ, the Messiah, depends the principal force of his present argument. It is the blood of him who was promised
~
Tod Xprorav,
a
VER. 18, 14.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 295
of old to be the high priest of the church, and the sacrifice for their sins; in whom was the faith of all the saints of old, that by him their sins should be expiated, that in him they should be justified and glorified; Christ, who is the Son of the living God, in whose person God purchased his church with his own blood. And we may ob- serve, that,—
Obs. II. The efficacy of all the offices of Christ towards the church depends on the dignity of his person.—The offering of his blood was prevalent for the expiation of sin, because it was his blood, and for no other reason. But thisis a subject which I have handled at large elsewhere.
A late learned commentator on this epistle takes occasion in this place to reflect on Dr Gouge, for affirming that Christ was a priest in both natures; which, as he says, cannot be true. I have not Dr Gouge’s Exposition by me, and so know not in what sense it is affirmed by him; but that Christ is a priest in his entire person, and so in both natures, is true, and'the constant opinion of all pro- testant divines. And the following words of this learned author, being well explained, will clear the difficulty. For he saith, “That he that is a priest is God; yet as God he is not, he cannot be a priest. For that Christ is a priest in both natures, is no more but that in the discharge of his priestly office he acts as God and man in one person; from whence the dignity and efficacy of his sacerdotal act- ings do proceed. It is not hence required, that whatever he doth
_ in the discharge of his office must bean immediate act of the divine as well as of the human nature. No more is required unto it, but
that the person whose acts they are is God and man, and acts as God and man, in each nature suitably unto its essential properties. Hence, although God cannot die,—that is, the divine nature cannot do so,—yet ‘ God | purchased his church with his own blood;’ and
‘so also ‘the Lord of glory was crucified’ for us. ‘The sum is, that
the person of Christ is the principle of all his mediatory acts; al- though those acts be immediately performed in and by virtue of his
distinct natures, some of one, some of another, according unto their distinct properties and powers. Hence are they all theandrical ;
2
which could not be if he were not a priest in both natures.” Nor is this impeached by what ensues in the same author, namely, “ That a priest is an officer; and all officers, as officers, are made such by commission from the sovereign power, and are servants under them.” For,—
1. It may be this doth not hold among the divine persons; it may be no more is required, in the dispensation of God towards the church, unto an office in any of them, but their own infinite conde- scension, with respect unto the order of their subsistence. So the Holy Ghost is in particular the comforter of the church by the way of
296 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. IX.
office, and is sent thereon by the Father and Son; yet is there no more required hereunto, but that the order of the operation of the per- sons in the blessed Trinity should answer the order of their subsist- ence: and so he who iu his person proceedeth from the Father and the Son is sent unto his work by the Father and the Son; no new act of authority being required thereunto, but only the determination of the divine will to act suitably unto the order of their subsistence.
2. The divine nature considered in the abstract cannot serve in an office; yet he who was “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death.” It was in the human nature that he was a servant; nevertheless it was the Son of God, he who in his divine nature was in the form of God, who so served in office and yielded that obedience. Wherefore he was so far a mediator and priest in both his. natures, as that whatever he did in the dis- charge of those offices was the act of his entire person; whereon the dignity and efficacy of all that he did did depend.
That which the effect intended is ascribed unto, is the blood of