Verse 27

Who needeth not daily, &c.

The words are a negation as they respect our High Priest, and include an affirmation with respect to the priests of the law, both in sundry instances. And the design of them is to exclude all those imperfections from him, which they were subject to. And we may observe in the words.

1. The manner of the negation, [in non-Latin alphabet], He needeth not; it is not necessary for him. The things expressed were not such as those priests might do, or omit as they saw occasion; but they were necessarily obliged to them. And the necessity the Apostle intends, was not only that which arose from God's institution, who appointed them to offer daily, first for themselves and then for the people, but that also which arose from their own state and condition, and from the nature of the sacrifices that they offered. For themselves being weak, infirm, and sinful, and their offerings being only of earthly things that could never perfectly expiate sin, these things were necessary for them, and so God had ordained. Therefore there are three grounds or reasons of the necessity here ascribed to these priests.

1. God had appointed them so to do. This comes first to view although there be another reason even of this appointment. And God taught hereby both them and the Church, their utter incapacity to effect the work committed to them, at once, whereon they were to multiply their oblations.

2. The nature of the offerings and sacrifices which they offered did make the manner of it here expressed, necessary to them. For they were such as could not attain the end of expiating sin: but only could represent that which did so; and therefore the repetition of them was needful, because their principal use was to be instructive only. Things that are really efficient themselves, may at once produce and perfect their effects: But those which are instructive only must be reiterated.

3. This necessity arose from their own state before God, and the state of the people. For they themselves often sinned, and having no other to offer for them, it was necessary that they should often offer for themselves. And so it was with the people also. They sinned still, and still must be offered for. After one offering, their sins again increased on them, and made another necessary.

From all these considerations our High Priest was absolutely exempted; and that on a twofold account, (1.) of his person, which being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, he needed not offer for himself. (2.) Of his offering, which being at once perfectly expiatory of the sins of the people, needed not to be repeated. And on these grounds God also had appointed that he should offer himself only once for all.

2. The second thing in these words is the declaration of them that lay under this necessity which our High Priest was not liable to, [in non-Latin alphabet], As the High Priests, that is, those High Priests of the law concerning whom he had treated. So we well render the words, as those High Priests, in like manner as they were, or as they had need. For the Apostle with respect to the Levitical priesthood carries on the comparison between Christ and them, especially in the instance of the High Priests and the discharge of their office; for they were the head of the priesthood, and the glory of the Church of Israel. Howbeit all other priests employed in the holy offerings and sacrifices of the people, are included herein. And it is apparent that if the priesthood of Christ does so far excel that office in the High Priests of the Old Testament, it must needs excel it in those of a subordinate order or degree. All these priests had need to offer in the manner here expressed.

3. A threefold difference is intimated between our High Priest and them.

1. In the frequency of their offerings, they were to offer daily, which also includes the order of their offering, first for themselves, and then for the people: whereas he offered once only.

2. It is supposed they offered the sacrifices appointed by the law which were of brute creatures only, from where their insufficiency and frequent repetition did proceed; as declared (Hebrews 10:1, 2, 3). He offered himself.

3. In the cause of their offering; they offered for their own sins, but he had none of his own to offer for.

Now all the things here ascribed to the Levitical priests, are weaknesses and imperfections in their office. And hereby the main position of the Apostle, and which was destructive of the whole fabric of Mosaical worship, namely, that the law whereby they were constituted made nothing perfect, was abundantly confirmed. For the greatest effect of that law was the constitution of this priesthood. And what perfection can be expected by such a priesthood where the priests were obliged continually to offer for their own sins? No sooner was one offering past, but they were providing matter, making another necessary. And so it was with respect to the sins of the people. And what perfection could be comprised in an everlasting rotation of sins and sacrifices? Is it not manifest that this priesthood and these sacrifices, could never of themselves expiate sin, nor make perfect them that came to God by them? Their instructive use was excellent: they both directed faith to look to the great future Priest and sacrifice, and established it, in that they were pledges given of God in assurance thereof. The eye of them all was a continual guidance to the Church, to look to him who alone was to make atonement for sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Howbeit they were of that nature, and were so ordained of God, that they should never give perfect ease and peace to them that were exercised in them. Some relief they found in them, but complete peace they did not afford. Nor can any thing do so, that is often to be repeated. The frequent repetitions of the sacrifices of the mass in the Church of Rome, does sufficiently manifest that there is no solid abiding peace with God in that Church. For this is not to be attained by any thing that must be frequently repeated. So our Apostle affirms expressly, that if the sacrifices of the law could have made perfect them that came to God by them, or given them perfect peace with God, they would have ceased to have been offered. And so it would be with the sacrifice of the mass. Only by the one offering of Christ, they are perfected as to peace with God, for whom he offered. And it gave great evidence to their instructive efficacy, that in themselves they were so weak, so imperfect, and ineffectual.

It was therefore unbelief heightened to obstinacy, which caused the Hebrews to refuse this High Priest and Sacrifice when exhibited of God, whereas before they could never attain to peace firm and stable. But love of carnal worship, and adherence to self-righteousness, are inseparable companions.

Obs. God requires our faith and obedience in and to nothing, but what is as absolutely needful for us, so highly reasonable to the minds of them that are enlightened. Such was this priesthood of Christ, now proposed to the faith of the Church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.

4. There is in the words the time and season of the performance of what is here ascribed to these High Priests, as necessary for them. They were to do it, [in non-Latin alphabet], Daily: that is, so often as occasion required according to the Law. For there is no reason to confine the Apostle's intention to the annual expiatory sacrifice only; as though [in non-Latin alphabet] were the same with [in non-Latin alphabet], Chap. 10. 1. Daily as much as Yearly. It is true that in that sacrifice the High Priest offered first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. But [in non-Latin alphabet] here used does not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the [in non-Latin alphabet] or daily sacrifice alone that is intended; though that be included also. For that juge sacrificium had respect to the sins of the whole Church both priests and people. As we are obliged to pray for the pardon of sin every day, by virtue of that sacrifice which is [in non-Latin alphabet], new and living in its efficacy continually, and as occasion did require. And so there was an obligation on the priest to offer for himself a sin-offering, as often as he sinned according to the sins of the people (Leviticus 4:3). If the priest that is anointed (that is, the High Priest) do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring for his sin which he has sinned, a young bullock without blemish, to the Lord for a sin offering. And to this institution the Apostle here has respect.

5. What they were thus obliged to, is declared; [in non-Latin alphabet]; to offer sacrifices for sins. All propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices are intended. But possibly a principal regard is had to the great anniversary sacrifice in the feast of Expiation (Leviticus 16). For although the Apostle mentions [in non-Latin alphabet] sacrifices in the plural number, and that was but one; yet because of the repetition of it, it being offered year by year continually, as he speaks (Chap. 10. 1), it may be signified hereby. And those sacrifices were [in non-Latin alphabet]. And in answer to them our Lord Jesus Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin. And this is expressed by [in non-Latin alphabet] for sin only, without the mention of sacrifice (Romans 8:3). For because [in non-Latin alphabet] signifies both the sin and the sacrifice for it, as the verb [in non-Latin alphabet] signifies in one conjugation to sin, and in another to expiate sin, the sacrifice itself is expressed by [in non-Latin alphabet], for sin.

6. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet]; first and then. First for his own sins, and then for those of the people. Either the whole discharge of the office of the High Priests may be intended in this order, or that which was peculiar to the Feast of Expiation. For he was in general to take care in the first place about offering for his own sins according to the Law (Leviticus 4). For if that were not done in due order, if their own legal guilt were not expiated in its proper season according to the Law, they were no way meet to offer for the sins of the congregation; yes, they exposed themselves to the penalty of excision. And this order was necessary seeing the Law appointed men to be priests who had infirmities of their own, as is expressed in the next verse. Or the order intended may respect in an especial manner the form and process prescribed in the solemn anniversary sacrifice at the feast of Expiation (Leviticus 16). First he was to offer a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the people, both on the same day.

1. [in non-Latin alphabet]; for his own sins: and this upon a double account. First, because he was really a sinner as the rest of the people were. If he do sin according to the sin of the people (Leviticus 4:3). Secondly, that upon the expiation of his own sins in the first place, he might be the more meet to represent him who had no sin. And therefore he was not to offer for himself in the offering that he made for the people, but stood therein as a sinless person, as our High Priest was really to be.

2. For the sins of the people; [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, for the whole congregation of Israel; according to the Law (Leviticus 16:21).

This was the duty, the order and method of the High Priests of old in their offerings and sacred services. This their weaknesses, infirmities and sins, as also the sacrifices which they offered, did require. All that could be learned from it was, that some more excellent priest and sacrifice was to be introduced. For no perfection, no consummation in divine favor, no settled peace of conscience could in this way be obtained; all things openly declared that so they could not be. And hence have we an evidence of what is affirmed (John 1:17): The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And the privilege or advancement of the Church in its deliverance from those various multiplied obscure means of instruction, into the glorious light of the way and causes of our adoption, justification and salvation, is inexpressibly great and full of grace. No longer are we now obliged to a rigid observance of those things which did not effect what they did represent. An increase in thankfulness, fruitfulness and holiness, cannot but be expected from us.

These are the things that are here denied of our High Priest: he had no need to offer sacrifice in this way, order, and method. The offering of sacrifice is not denied, that is, sacrifice for the sins of the people; yes, it is positively asserted in the next words; but that he offered daily, many sacrifices, or any for himself, or had need so to do, this is denied by the Apostle. That alone which he did, is asserted in the remaining words of the verse; for this he did once when he offered himself.

And two things are in the words; (1) What he did in general; (2) In particular, how he did it.

For the first, it is said, [in non-Latin alphabet], This he did; [in non-Latin alphabet], refers only to one clause of the Antecedent, namely, offering for the sins of the People. This he did once, when he offered himself; for himself he did not offer.

But contrary to the sense of the whole Church of God, contrary to the Analogie of Faith, and with no small danger in the expression, Socinus first affirmed that the Lord Christ offered also for himself or his own sins. And he is followed herein by those of his own sect, as Schlinctingius on this place, and so he is also by Grotius and Hammond, which is the channel whereby many of his notions and conceptions are derived to us. It is true, that both he and they do acknowledge, that the Lord Christ had no sins of his own properly so called; that is, transgressions of the Law; but his infirmities, say some of them, whereby he was exposed to death, his sufferings, say others, are called his sins.

But nothing can be more abhorrent from truth and piety than this assertion.

1. If this be so, then the Apostle expresly in terms affirms that Christ offered for his own sins, and that distinctly from the sins of the People. And from this blasphemy we are left to relieve ourselves by an interpretation that the Scripture no where gives countenance to; namely, that by sins, infirmities or miseries are intended. It is true that infirmity, [in non-Latin alphabet], does sometimes signify sin, or obnoxiousness to sin, but sin does no where signify natural infirmities but moral evils always. It is true Christ was made sin, but where it is said so, it is also added, that it was for us; and to take off all apprehensions of any thing in him that might be so called, that he knew no sin. He was made sin for us, when he offered for the sins of the People. And other distinct offering for himself he offered none. And therefore in sundry places where mention is made of his offering himself, it is still observed, that he did no sin, but was as a Lamb without spot and without blemish. Let therefore men put what interpretation they please on their own words (for they are not the words of the Apostle that Christ offered himself for his own sins) the language is and must be offensive to every holy heart, and has an open appearance of express contradiction to many other testimonies of the Scripture.

2. The sole reason pretended to give countenance to this absurd assertion is, that, [in non-Latin alphabet], This, must answer to the whole preceding proposition which is its Antecedent. Now therein is mention of the priests offering first for their own sins, then for the sins of the People, and this it is said Christ did, that is, he offered first for his own sins, and then for the People. But to answer the whole Antecedent in both parts of it, it is indispensably necessary that he must, as they did, offer two distinct offerings, one, namely the First, for himself, and the other, or then, for the People. For so did they, so were they obliged to do by the Law, and other offerings for themselves and the People in any other order or method there never was nor could be. But this is expresly contradictory to what is here affirmed of the Lord Christ and his offering; namely, that he offered himself once only, and if but once, he could not offer first for himself, then for the People; nor at all for himself and them in the same offering, which the High Priests themselves could not do.

3. This insinuation not only enervates, but is contradictory to the principal design of the Apostle in the verse foregoing and in that which follows. For, ver. 26. He, on purpose describes our High Priest by such properties and qualifications as might evidence him to have no need to offer for his own sins, as those other priests had. For from this consideration that he was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, the Apostle makes this inference, that he needed not to offer for himself as those High Priests did. But according to this interpretation, no such thing ensues thereon; but notwithstanding all those qualifications he had need to offer for his own sins. And, ver. 28. the difference he puts between him and them is this, that they were men subject to infirmities, but he is the Son consecrated for ever; which apparently exempts him from any necessity of offering for himself. For as is apparent from the Antithesis, he was not subject to any of those infirmities which made it necessary to them, to offer for themselves. Therefore the whole design of the Apostle in these verses is utterly perverted and overthrown by this interpretation.

4. When those priests offered for their own sins, their sins were of the same nature with the sins of the People. If the Priest that is anointed, shall sin after the manner of the People (Leviticus 4:3). If therefore this be to be repeated [in non-Latin alphabet], this he did when he offered for his own sins and of the People, sins being only expressed in the first place and understood in the later, sins properly so called must be intended, which is the height of blasphemy.

5. If the Lord Christ offered for himself or his own infirmities, then those infirmities were such as were obstructions and hindrances to his offering for others; for that is the only reason why he should offer for their removal or taking away. But this is so far otherwise as that indeed he was obnoxious to no infirmity, but what was necessary that he might be a meet High Priest and Sacrifice for us. For so was every thing that is inseparable from humane nature; which is utterly destructive of this figment.

6. This imagination will admit of no tolerable sense in its exposition or application. For how can we conceive that the Lord Christ offered for his own infirmities, that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness to death? It must be by his sufferings and death; for in and by them he offered himself to God. But this is absurd and foolish: By his suffering he offered for his sufferings. What he offered for, he took away, as he did the sins of the People. But his own sorrows and sufferings he took not away, but underwent them all.

It is contradictory to the principal maxim of the Socinians with respect to the priesthood of Christ. For they maintain, that his one perfect offering or expiatory sacrifice was in Heaven only, and not on the earth. But he could not at his appearance in the Holy place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all past and finished, himself being exalted in immortality and glory.

These things are sufficient to repress the vanity of this figment. But because there is no small danger in the proposal that has been made of it, I shall briefly examine what reasons its authors and promoters do produce to give countenance to it.

Thus proceeds and argues Crellius or Schlictingius on the place. Peccata preprie dicta, id est, divinar am legnm transgressiones, cum in Christo locum non habeant ullum, (1) Necesse est ut in voce peccatorum sit improprietas, significenturque Christi infirmitates & perpessiones, (2) Qua de re jam egimus. cap. 5. ver. 2. 3. (3) Sic vidimus istarum infirmitatum & perpessionum contraria, Sanctitatis & innocentiae nomine paulo ante versu superiore describi; qui duo versiculi mutuo se illustrant: (seipsum offerens.) (4) Docet quando Christus pro se obtulerit, preces nimirum & supplicationes ut cap. 5. ver. 7. vidimus: tunc nempe cum in eo esset, ut seipsum deo offerret, cum sese ad oblationem sui ipsius accingeret, hoc est, cum tanquam victima mactaretur. (5) Oblatio enim Christi sic hoc loco extendenda est ut mortem ipsius tanquam necessarium antecedens, & quoddam veluti initium complectatur. (6) Cum vero hic versiculus ex superiori commate pendeat & inferatur, vel hinc apparet, non agi isthic de moribus, sed de natura, deque felici statu ac conditione nostri Pontificis. Nec enim ideo Christus opus non habet amplius pro se offerre, quod Sanctus sit & inculpatus, ratione morum seu actionum suarum, cum semper talis fuerit; sed quod in perpetunm ab omnibus malis & afflictionibus sit liberatus.

I have transcribed his words at large, because what is offered by others to the same purpose, is all included in them. But the whole of it will be easily removed.

The impropriety of speech pretended, that sins should be put for infirmities, is that which the use of the Scripture will give no countenance to. It is only feigned by these men at their pleasure. Let them, if they can, produce any one place, where by sins not moral evils, but natural infirmities are intended. But by feigning improprieties of speech at our pleasure we may wrest and pervert the Scripture, even also as we please.

Of the infirmities of the humane nature of Christ, which were necessary that he might be a sacrifice, and useful to his being a priest, we have also treated in the place quoted (chap. 5:2, 3). Whereunto the Reader is referred.

Not the contrary to these infirmities, but the contrary to sin original and actual, is intended by holiness and innocency in the verse foregoing, as has been proved in the exposition of that verse, whereunto the Reader is referred.

The Lord Christ offered up prayers and supplications to God, when he offered himself: not to expiate his own infirmities by his offering, but that he might be carried through and supported in his oblation which he offered for the sins of the people; and had success therein. See the exposition on chap. 5:7.

He is more kind than ordinary in extending the oblation of Christ to his death also. But he recalls his grant, affirming that he did only prepare himself for his offering thereby. And this also casts his whole exposition into much confusion. Christ offered himself once, says the Apostle; [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], once, and at one time. This I suppose is agreed. Then he offered for himself and his own sins, or not at all. For he offered but once, and at one time; where then did he thus offer himself and when? In Heaven upon his Ascension, say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? On the earth. Then he offered himself twice? No, by no means, he offered not himself on the earth; how then did he offer for himself on the earth? He did not indeed offer himself on the earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the earth, and therein he offered for himself; that is, he did, and he did not offer himself upon the earth. For they cannot evade by saying that he did it when he offered up prayers on the earth: for the Apostle says expressly in this place, that what he did, he did it when he offered himself. And it must be by such an offering as answered the offering of the high priest for himself, which was bloody.

The close of his discourse, whereby he would prove the truth of his exposition of the verse foregoing from his interpretation of this, is absurd; as that which would give countenance, to an evident falsehood, from what is more evidently so.

Grotius adds little to what Schlictingius offers in this case. Only he tells us that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is taken for those griefs which are commonly the punishment of sin (Romans 6:10). But it is a mistake: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in that place, signifies nothing but the guilt of sin, which Christ died to expiate and take away. He died once for sin, that is, he suffered once for sin. He says moreover, that profluvium mulierum is called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Levit. 12. 8. 15. 13. as also is the leprosy; chap. 14. 13. But herein also he is mistaken; both the one and the other subject to those defiling distempers, were appointed to offer a sin-offering for those sins, which those defilements were tokens of, and the sin of nature which they proceed from. Again he says, that Christ in his offering was freed from those infirmities and miseries, per mortem acceleratam. But his death was not hasted one moment until all was finished; nor did he offer for the hastening of his death. And his ensuing words are most ambiguous; Christ offered, pro doloribus istis qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, & quos Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit. If the sorrows intended were not true punishments of sin, they could not be offered for. And what sorrows Christ underwent so far as they were penal, he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the people, and not otherwise. But those which are called his own sins, must be every way distinct from the sins of the people, and have no relation to them; as the sins of the High Priests of old had not. Therefore if by the occasion of the sins of men, he intend, that his sufferings and griefs were for the sins of men, then he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the people, when he bare our sins and sorrows, and had no need to offer distinctly for them as his own. And if it were a sorrow that was not for sin, it cannot be called sin. Christ's sufferings on the occasion of the sins of mankind, is well understood by those who are any way skilled in the Socinian mysteries.

Hammond says the same. He both (says he) offered for himself, that is, made expiation as it were (not to deliver himself from sin, for he was never guilty of any) but from the infirmities assumed by him, but especially from death itself; and so is now never likely to die, and to determine his Melchisedecian Priesthood. Ans. (1) To make expiation as it were from the infirmities assumed by him, or to be delivered from them, is hard to be understood. (2) Much more is it, how by death wherein he offered himself, he should make expiation to be delivered from death itself. (3) And it is as hard to say, that Christ offered for himself once by death, that he might die no more; seeing it is appointed to all men only once to die.

I have digressed thus far to crush this novel invention, which as it is untrue and alien from the sense of the Apostle, so it has in the expression of it an ungrateful sound of impiety. But I expect not so much sobriety, as that considering the means of its conveyance to the minds of men at present, it should not be vented again, until what has been here pleaded in its confutation be answered. At present I shall proceed with the exposition of the remainder of the words.

How, and what Christ offered for the sins of the people is declared in the words remaining.

1. For the way or manner of it. He did it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], once only. This is directly opposed to the frequency of the legal sacrifices repeated daily as there was occasion. Those High Priests offered [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], daily, on all occasions; He [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], once only.

And I cannot but observe by the way that this assertion of the Apostle is no less absolutely exclusive of the missatical sacrifices of the Priests of the Roman Church, than it is of the Levitical sacrifices of the High Priest of the Church of the Jews. Their expositors on this place do generally affirm in plea for their Church, that they offer it not to make expiation of sins, but only to represent and make application of the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. But in their Mass itself they speak otherwise, and expressly offer it to God a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Neither yet do we enquire to what end they do what they do: and this is all they say, that they offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, that is, himself. And this they do a thousand times more frequently, than the expiatory sacrifices were among the Jews. Neither were their sacrifices offered properly by God's appointment to make atonement for sin by their own virtue and efficacy; but only to be a representation and application of the sacrifice of Christ to come. Whatever ends they therefore fancy to themselves, by pretending to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, they contradict the words of the Apostle, and wholly evert the force of his argument. For if the same sacrifice which the Lord Christ offered be often offered and had need so to be, the whole argument to prove the excellency of his Priesthood in that he offered himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifices, falls to the ground.

And hence also the foundation of this fiction is razed. For it is, that the Lord Christ offered himself at the supper the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent Council affirms, Sess. 22. Cap. 1. For if he did so, he offered himself more than once, twice at least; which being a matter of fact, is to give the Apostle the lie.

What he offered is expressed in the last place, and therein the reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those Priests did. And this is taken from the excellency of his offering, he offered himself. And this gives the highest preference of the Priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For, (1.) those Priests had nothing of their own to offer, but must be furnished with offerings from among the other creatures. (2.) Though they had the best from them, the blood and fat, yet it was but the blood of Calves, and Sheep, and Goats. And what can this do for the real expiation of the sins of our souls? See Micah 6:6, 7, 8. Therefore when at any time the people were brought under any serious conviction of sin, they could not but apprehend, that none of these sacrifices, however multiplied, could deliver them from their guilt. But the Lord Christ had something of his own to offer, that which was originally and absolutely his own, not borrowed or taken from any thing among the creatures. And this was himself, a sacrifice able to make atonement for all the sins of mankind. And from the words thus expounded we may observe,

1. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the Church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. As the first part of this assertion declares the insufficiency of the Priests of the Church of the Jews, so does the latter the vain pretence of the Priests of the Church of Rome. The former the Apostle proves and confirms expressly. For no other high Priest but such a one as was in himself perfectly sinless, did become us, or our state and condition. He that was otherwise could neither have any thing of his own to offer, and must in the first place offer for himself, and this he must be doing day by day. And the latter on many accounts is a vile presumptuous imagination. For a poor sinful worm of the earth, to interpose himself between God and Christ, and offer the one in sacrifice to the other, what an issue is it of pride and folly?

2. The excellency of Christ's Person and Priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical Priesthood was obliged to. And the due apprehension hereof is a great guide to us in the consideration of those types. For many things we shall meet withal which we cannot see how they had a particular accomplishment in Christ, nor find out what they did prefigure. But all of them were such that their own infirm state and condition did require. Such was their outward call and consecration which they had by the law, in the sacrifice of beasts, with certain washings and unctions, their sacrificing often, and for themselves, their succession one to another, their purifications or legal pollutions. These and sundry things of like nature were made necessary to them from their own sins and infirmities, and so had no particular accomplishment in Christ. However in general all the ordinances and institutions about them all, taught the Church thus much, that nothing of that was to be found in the true high Priest wherein they were defective.

3. No sacrifice could bring us to God and save the Church to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both Priest and Offering. Such an high Priest became us who offered himself once for all. And we may consider, (1.) that this was one of the greatest effects of infinite divine wisdom and grace. His incarnation wherein he had a body prepared for him for this purpose, his call to his office by the oath of the Father and unction of the Spirit, his sanctifying himself to be a sacrifice, and his offering up himself through the eternal Spirit to God, are all full of mysterious wisdom and grace. All these wonders of wisdom and love, were necessary to this great end of bringing us to God. (2.) Every part of this transaction, all that belongs to this sacrifice, is filled up with perfection, that no more could be required on the part of God, nor is any thing wanting to give countenance to our unbelief. The Person of the Priest and the Offering itself are both the same, both the Son of God. One view of the glory of this mystery, how satisfactory is it to the souls of believers? (3.) A distinct consideration of the Person of the Priest and of his sacrifice will evidence this truth to the faith of believers. What could not this Priest prevail for in his interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause intrusted in any other hand; what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make atonement for? What sin, or whose sins could it not expiate? Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World.

4. It was burdensome and heavy work to attain relief against sin and settled peace of conscience under the old Priesthood, attended with so many weaknesses and infirmities. Herein lies the greatest part of that yoke which the Apostle Peter affirms that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10). Which the Lord Christ gives us deliverance from (Matthew 11:27, 28, 29, 30).