The Socinian expositor on this place endeavours, by a long per- plexed discourse, to evade the force of this testimony, wherein the expiation of sin is directly assigned unto the blood of Christ. His pretence is to show how many ways it may be so; but his design is to prove that really it can be so by none at all; for the assertion, as it lies in terms, is destructive of their heresy, Wherefore he proceeds on these suppositions :—
1, “ That the expiation for sin is our deliverance from the punishment due unto sin, by the power of Christ in heaven.” But as this is diametrically opposite unto the true nature of it, so is it unto its representation in the sacrifices of old, whereunto it is com- pared by the apostle, and from whence he argueth. Neither is this a tolerable exposition of the words: ‘The “blood of Christ,” in answer unto what was represented by the blood of the sacrifices of the law, doth “purge our consciences from dead works;” that is, Christ, by his power in heaven, doth free us from the punishment due to sin.’
2. “That Christ was not a priest until after his ascension into heaven.” That this supposition destroys the whole nature of that office, hath been sufficiently before declared.
3. “That his offering himself unto God was the presenting of himself in heaven before God, as having done the will of God on the earth.” But as this hath nothing in it of the nature of a sacri- fice, so what is asserted to be done by it can, according to these men, be no way said to be done by his blood, seeing they affirm that when Christ doth this he hath neither flesh nor blood.
4, “That the resurrection of Christ gave all efficacy unto his death.” But the truth is, it was his death, and what he effected therein, that was the ground of his resurrection. He was “ brought again from the dead through the blood of the covenant.” And the efficacy of his death depends on his resurrection only as the evidence of his acceptance with God therein.
5, “That Christ confirmed his doctrine by his blood;” that is, because he rose again.
All these principles I have at large refuted in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ, and shall not here again insist on their examination. This is plain and evident in the words, unless violence be offered unto them, namely, that “the blood of Christ,” —that is, his suffering in soul and body, and his obedience therein,
VER. 13, 14.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 299
testified and expressed in the shedding of his blood,—was the pro- curing cause of the expiation of our sins, “ the purging of our con- sciences from dead works,” our justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God thereon. And,—
Obs. III. There is nothing more destructive unto the whole faith of the gospel, than by any means to evacuate the immediate efficacy of the blood of Christ—Every opinion of that tendency breaks in upon the whole mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in him. It renders all the institutions and sacrifices of the law, whereby God instructed the church of old in the mystery of his grace, use- less and unintelligible, and overthrows the foundation of the gospel.
The second thing in the words, is the means whereby the blood of Christ came to be of this efficacy, or to produce this effect. And that is, because in the shedding of it “he offered himself unto God, through the eternal Spirit, without spot.’ Every word is of great importance, and the whole assertion filled with the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God, and must therefore be distinctly con- sidered.
‘There is declared what Christ did unto the end mentioned, and that is expressed in the matter and manner of it: 1. He “ offered himself.” 2. To whom; that is, “to God.” 3. How, or from what principle, by what means; “through the eternal Spirit.” 4 With what qualifications; “ without spot.”
1. “He offered himself.” To prove that his blood purgeth away our sins, he affirms that he “offered himself” His whole human nature was the offering; the way of its offering was by the shedding of his blood. So the beast was the sacrifice, when the blood alone or principally was offered on the altar; for it was the blood that made atonement. So it was by his blood that Christ made atonement, but it was his person that gave it efficacy unto that end. Wherefore by “ himself,’ the whole human nature of Christ is intended. And that,—
1.) Not in distinction or separation from the divine. For although the human nature of Christ, his soul and body, only was offered, yet he offered himself through his own eternal Spirit. This offering of himself, therefore, was the act of his whole person, both natures concurred in the offering, though one alone was offered.
(2.) All that he did or suffered in his soul and body when his blood was shed, is comprised in this offering of himself’ His obedi- ence in suffering was that which rendered this offering of himself “a sacrifice unto God of a sweet-smelling savour.”
And he is said thus to offer “himself,” in opposition unto the sacrifices of the high priests under the law. They offered goats and bulls, or their blood; but he offered himself. This, therefore, was the nature of the offering of Christ:—It was a sacred act of the