Verse 25

[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Syr.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; and not also; neque, neither; nor yet.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Syr.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]his Soul; He made his Soul an offering for Sin. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Syr.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]many times.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Syr.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; in or with Blood that was not his own properly, Heb.[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], with other blood, or the blood of another.

Nor yet that he should offer himself often as the High Priest entreth into the Holy-Place every year with the blood of others.

In the foregoing verse there is an opposition in the comparison between the Lord Christ, and the High Priest of the Law; yet is it such as has its foundation in a similitude that is between them; and therefore respects not so much the things themselves opposed, as the manner of them. For as the Lord Christ entred not into the Holy Place made with hands, but into Heaven itself; so the High Priest had an entrance also, yet not into Heaven, but into that other Holy Place. But in this verse there is an opposition in the comparison that has no foundation in any similitude between them, and that is absolutely denyed of Christ which belonged essentially to the discharge of the office of the High Priest of old. Many things ensued on the weakness and imperfection of the types, which would not allow that there should be a perfect compleat resemblance in them of the substance itself, that all things between them exactly should answer to one another. Hence they did at best but obscurely represent the good things to come, and in some things it was not possible but there should be a great discrepancy between them.

The assertion in these words proceeds on a supposition of the duty of the High Priest, which had that reason for it, as that it was absolutely necessary that our High Priest should not do after the same manner. The High Priest ended not his work of offering sacrifices by his entrance into the Holy Place with the blood of it; but he was to repeat the same sacrifice again every year. This therefore, in correspondence with this type, might be expected from Christ also; namely, that whereas he offered himself to God through the Eternal Spirit, and afterwards entred into the Holy Place or Heaven itself, he should offer himself again, and so have another entrance into the presence of God. This the Apostle denies him to have done, and in the next verse gives a demonstration, proving it was impossible he should so do. And hereof he gives the reason both in the remaining verses of this chapter and the beginning of the next. The repetition of the annual sacrifices under the Law was mainly from hence, because they were not able perfectly to effect that which they did signifie; but the one sacrifice of Christ did at once perfectly accomplish what they did represent. Herein therefore of necessity there was to be a difference, a dissimilitude, an opposition between what those High Priests did as to the repetition of sacrifices, and what was done by our High Priest, which is expressed in this verse.

The introduction of the Apostle's assertion is by the disjunctive negative, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], nor yet; it answers the negative in the first part of the preceding verse. He entred not into the Holy Place made with hands as the High Priest; nor yet to do what the High Priest did afterwards.

In the words themselves there are two things. (1) What is denyed of the Lord Christ. (2) The limitation of that denial to the other part of the comparison as to what the High Priest did.

1. It is denied of him that he did thus enter into Heaven that he should offer himself often; it does not follow, says the Apostle, that because as an High Priest he entred into Heaven, as the High Priests of the Law entred into the Holy Place made with hands, that he should therefore offer himself often, as that High Priest offered every year. It was not required of him, there was no need of it for the reasons mentioned, it was impossible he should. For this offering of himself was not his appearance in the presence of God; but the one sacrifice of himself by death, as the Apostle declares in the next verse. That he should so offer himself often, more than once, was needless from the perfection of that one offering; by one offering he has for ever perfected them that were sanctified; and impossible from the condition of his person, he could not die often. What remains for the exposition of these words, will be declared in the removal of those false glosses and wrestings of them, whereby some endeavour to pervert them.

The Socinians plead from hence that the sacrifice of Christ, or his offering of himself is the same with his appearance in Heaven, and the presentation of himself in the presence of God; and they do it out of hatred to the atonement made by his blood. For, say they, it is here compared to the entrance of the High Priest into the Holy Place every year; which was only an appearance in the presence of God.

Answ. 1. There is no such comparison intended in the words. The Apostle mentioning the entrance of the High Priest with blood into the Holy Place, intends only to evince the imperfection of that service, in that after he had done so, he was again to offer renewed sacrifices every year, a sufficient evidence that those sacrifices could never make them perfect who came to God by them. With Christ it was not so, as the Apostle declares. So that there is not herein a comparison between the things themselves, but an opposition between their effects.

2. It is granted that the entrance of the High Priest into the Holy Place, belonged to the complement or perfection of his service in the expiatory sacrifice. But the sacrifice itself did not consist therein. So likewise did the entrance of Christ into Heaven belong to the perfection of the effects and efficacy of his sacrifice, as to the way of its application to the Church. So far there is a comparison in the words and no further.

3. That the sacrifice of Christ or his offering himself once for all, once and not often, is the same with his continual presentation of himself in the presence of God, is both false in itself, and contrary to the express design of the Apostle. For

(1) It is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a slain or bloody sacrifice, whereof he treats, as he expresly calls it, ver. 25, 26. But there is no shedding of blood in the appearance of Christ in Heaven; nor, according to these men, any such thing appertaining to his nature.

(2) These things are distinguished in the Scripture from their different natures and effects (1 John 2:1, 2).

(3) His Sacrifice or the offering of himself, is so affirmed to be one, as to consist in One individual Act. It is not only said that it was one Offering, but that it was once only offered, ver. 26, 28. This is no way reconcileable to his continual Appearance in the presence of God.

(4) His Offering is mentioned by the Apostle as that which was then past, and no more to be repeated. He has by one Offering perfected them that are Sanctified.

(5) His Oblation was accompanied with, and inseparable from suffering; so he declares in the next verse; proving that he could not often offer himself, because he could not often suffer. But his Presentation of himself in Heaven, is not only inconsistent with actual Suffering, but also with any obnoxiousness thereunto. It belongs to his state of Exaltation and Glory.

(6) The time of the offering himself is limited to the End of the World; now once in the end of the World; in opposition to the Season that passed before; denoting a certain determinate Season in the dispensation of times; of which afterwards.

(7) This Imagination is destructive of the principal design and Argument of the Apostle. For he proves the Imperfection of the Sacrifices of the Law, and their insufficiency to consummate the Church, from their annual Repetition; affirming that if they could have perfected the Worshippers, they would have ceased to have been offered. Yet was that Sacrifice, which he respects, repeated only once a year. But, on this Supposition, the Sacrifice of Christ must be offered always, and never cease to be actually offered, which reflects a greater Imperfection on it, than was on those which were repeated only once a year. But the Apostle expresly affirms that the Sacrifice, which could effect its End, must cease to be offered (Chap. 10:2). Whereas therefore by One offering he has for ever perfected them that are Sanctified; he does not continue to offer himself; though he does so, to appear in the Presence of God to make Application of the virtue of that One offering to the Church.

The Expositors of the Roman Church do raise an Objection on this place, for no other End, but that they may return an Answer to it, perniciously opposite to and destructive of the Truth here taught by the Apostle; though some of them do acknowledge that it is capable of another answer. But this is that which they principally insist upon as needful to their present Cause. They say therefore that if Christ cease to offer himself, then it seems that his Sacerdotal Office ceaseth also. For it belongs to that office to offer Sacrifices continually. But there is no force in this Objection. For it belongs to no Priest to offer any other, or any more Sacrifices but what were sufficient and effectual to the End of them and their office. And such was the One Sacrifice of Christ. Besides though it be not actually repeated, yet it is vertually applyed always; and this belongs to the present discharge of his Sacerdotal Office: so does also his Appearance in Heaven for us, with his Intercession; where he still continues in the actual exercise of his Priesthood, so far as is needful or possible. But they have an Answer of their own, to their own Objection. They say therefore, that Christ continueth to offer himself every day in the Sacrifice of the Mass, by the hands of the Priests of their Church. And this Sacrifice of him, though it be unbloody, yet is a true real Sacrifice of Christ, the same with that which he offered on the Cross.

It is better never to raise Objections than thus to answer them. For this is not to expound the words, but to dispute against the Doctrine of the Apostle; as I shall briefly evince.

1. That the Lord Christ has by the One offering of himself for ever perfected them that are Sanctified, is a Fundamental Article of Faith. Where this is denied, or overthrown, either directly or by just Consequence, the Church is overthrown also. But this is expresly denied in the Doctrine of the frequent Repetition of his Sacrifice, or of the offering of himself. And there is no Instance, wherein the Romanists do more expresly oppose the Fundamental Articles of Religion.

2. The Repetition of Sacrifices arose solely from their Imperfection, as the Apostle declares (Chap. 10:2). And if it undeniably proved an Imperfection in the Sacrifices of the Law, that they were repeated once every year in one place only; how great must the Imperfection of the Sacrifice of Christ be esteemed, if it be not effectual to take away Sin, and perfect them that are Sanctified, unless it be repeated every day, and that, it may be, in a thousand Places?

3. To say that Christ offereth himself often, is expresly and in Terms contradictory to the Assertion of the Apostle. Whatever therefore they may apprehend of the offering of him by their Priests, yet most certain it is, that he does not every day offer himself. But as the Faith of the Church is concerned in no offering of Christ but that which he offered himself, of himself, by the eternal Spirit once for all; so the pretence to offer him often by the Priests is highly Sacrilegious.

4. The infinite actings of the Divine Nature in Supporting and Influencing of the Humane, the inexpressible Operation of the Holy Ghost in him, to such a peculiar acting of all Grace, especially of Zeal to the Glory of God, and compassion for the Souls of men, as are inimitable to the whole Creation, were required to the offering of himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling Savour to God. And how can a poor sinful mortal man, such as are the best of their Priests, pretend to offer the same Sacrifice to God?

5. An unbloody Sacrifice, is, (1) A contradiction in itself. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which is the only Sacrifice which the Apostle treats of, is victimae mactatio, as well as victimae mactatae oblatio. It is a Sacrifice by death, and that by blood-shedding; other [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] there never was any. (2) If it might be supposed, yet is it a thing altogether useless; for without shedding of blood there is no remission. The rule I acknowledge is firstly expressed with respect to legal sacrifices and oblations: yet is it used by the Apostle by an argument drawn from the nature and end of those institutions, to prove the necessity of blood-shedding in the Sacrifice of Christ himself for the remission of sin. An unbloody sacrifice for the remission of sin, overthrows both the law and the Gospel. (3) It is directly contrary to the argument of the Apostle in the next verse; wherein he proves that Christ could not offer himself often. For he does it by affirming, that if he did so, then must he often suffer, that is, by the effusion of his blood; which was absolutely necessary in and to his Sacrifice. Therefore an unbloody sacrifice, which is without suffering, whatever it be, is not the Sacrifice of Christ. For if he be often offered, he must often suffer, as the Apostle affirms. Nor is it to any purpose to say, that this unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, receiveth its virtue and efficacy from the one Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as it is pleaded by the defenders of it; for the question is not what value it has, nor from where it has it; but whether it be the Sacrifice of Christ himself or no.

To sum up the substance of this whole controversy; the Sacrifice or offering of Christ, was (1) By himself alone through the eternal Spirit. (2) Was of his whole human nature as to the matter of it. He made his soul an offering for sin. (3) Was by death and bloodshedding, whereon its entire efficacy as to atonement, reconciliation and the sanctification of the Church, do depend. (4) Was once only offered, and could be so no more from the glory of his Person, and the nature of the Sacrifice itself. (5) Was offered with such glorious internal actings of grace, as no mortal creature can comprehend. (6) Was accompanied with his bearing the curse of the law, and the punishment due to our sins; which were taken away thereby. And in all this the human nature was supported, sustained and acted by the divine in the same Person, which gave the whole duty its efficacy and merit. That pretended in the Mass, is (1.) Offered by priests without him, or those which call themselves so; who therefore rather represent them by whom he was crucified, than himself who offered himself alone. (2.) Is only of bread and wine, which have nothing in them of the soul of Christ, allowing their transubstantiation. (3.) Can have no influence into the remission of sins, being confessedly unbloody, whereas without the shedding of blood there is no remission. (4.) Is often offered, that is, every day, declaring a greater imperfection in it, than was in the great expiatory sacrifice of the law, which was offered only once a year. (5) Requires to it no grace in the offerer, but only an intention to do his office. (6) Does in nothing answer the curse of the law, and therefore makes no atonement. Therefore these things are so far from being the same Sacrifice, as that they are opposite, inconsistent, and the admission of the one, is the destruction of the other.

Some observations we may take from the text.

1. Such is the absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ, that it stands in need of, that it will admit of no repetition in any kind. Hence the Apostle affirms that if it be despised or neglected, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. There is none of any other kind, nor any repetition to be made of itself; as there was of the most solemn legal sacrifices. Neither of them are consistent with its perfection. And this absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ arises, (1) From the dignity of his Person (Acts 20:28). There needs no new offering after that, wherein he who offered and who was offered, was God and Man in one Person. The repetition of this offering, is inconsistent with the glory of the wisdom, righteousness, holiness and grace of God; and would be utterly derogatory to the dignity of his Person. (2) From the nature of the Sacrifice itself; 1. In the internal gracious actings of his soul; he offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit. Grace and obedience could never be more glorified. 2. In the punishment he underwent, answering and taking away the whole curse of the law; any farther offering for atonement is highly blasphemous. 3. From the love of the Father to him and delight in him. As in his Person, so in his one offering the soul of God rests and is well-pleased. 4. From its efficacy to all ends of a Sacrifice. Nothing was ever designed therein, but was at once accomplished by this one offering of Christ. Therefore

2. This one offering of Christ is always effectual to all the ends of it, even no less than it was in the day and hour when it was actually offered. Therefore it needs no repetition like those of old, which could affect the conscience of a sinner only for a season, and until the incursion of some new sin. This is always fresh in the virtue of it, and needs nothing but renewed application by faith, for the communication of its effects and fruits to us. Therefore

3. The great call and direction of the Gospel is to guide faith, and keep it up to this one offering of Christ, as the spring of all grace and mercy. This is the immediate end of all its ordinances of worship. In the preaching of the Word, the Lord Christ is set forth as evidently crucified before our eyes; and in the ordinance of the Supper especially, is it represented to the peculiar exercise of faith.

But we must proceed to a brief exposition of the remainder of this verse. The one offering of Christ is not here proposed absolutely, but in opposition to the High Priest of the law, whose entrance into the holy place did not put an end to his offering of sacrifices, but his whole service about them was to be annually repeated. This sacrifice of the High Priest we have treated of before, and shall therefore now only open these words wherein it is expressed.

1. The person spoken of is the High Priest; that is, any one, every one that is so, or that was so in any age of the Church, from the institution of that priesthood to the expiration of it. As the High Priest; in like manner so he did.

2. It is affirmed of him, that he entreth, in the present tense. Some think that respect is had to the continuance of the Temple-service at that time. He entreth, that is, he continueth so to do. And this the Apostle sometimes admits of, as Chap. 8:4. But in this place he intends no more but the constitution of the law. According to the law he entereth. This is that which the law requires. And hereby, as in other instances, the Apostle lays before their consideration a scheme of their ancient worship, as it was at first established, that it might be the better compared with the dispensation of the New Covenant, and the ministry of Christ.

3. This entrance is limited to the Holy Place. The most Holy Place in the Tabernacle or Temple, the Holy Place made with hands.

4. There is the season of their entrance; yearly. Once in an annual revolution, or the day fixed by the law, the tenth day of the month Tisri or our September.

5. The manner of his entrance was, with the blood of others; blood that was not his own, as the Syriac expresseth it. The blood of the sacrifice of Christ was his own. He redeemed the Church, [in non-Latin alphabet] (Acts 20:28). Hereunto [in non-Latin alphabet] is opposed [in non-Latin alphabet], other blood, the blood of others; that is, the blood of bulls and goats offered in sacrifice, in for cum, say most Expositors, which is not unusual. See 1 John 5:6; Genesis 32:10; Hosea 4:3. The meaning is, by virtue of the blood of others, which he carried with him into the Holy Place.

That which is denied of Christ the Antitype is the repetition of this service, and that because of the perfection of his sacrifice, the other being repeated because of their imperfection. And we may observe, that

Whatever had the greatest glory in the old legal institutions, carried along with it the evidence of its own imperfection, compared with the thing signified in Christ and his office. The entrance of the High Priest into the Holy Place, was the most glorious solemnity of the law. Howbeit the annual repetition of it was a sufficient evidence of its imperfection, as the Apostle disputes in the beginning of the next chapter.