a meet habitation for him it was not. And our apostle lays it down as
a principle suited unto natural light, that God, who made all things,
could not dwell, ev \eipoTroLr]Toig vaoig, Acts xvii. 24, ' in temples made
with hands.' Such was the tabernacle of old, but such was not that
wherein our Lord Jesus administereth his office.
There seems to me to have been an apprehension among the Jews,
that there should be a temple wherein God would dwell, that should
not be made with hands. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the first year of
his ministry, upon his purging of the temple, upon their requiring a
sign for the justification of his authority in what he had done, says no
more, but only, ' Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up,' John ii. 19. He spake of the same temple, as to their destruction
of it, and his own raising it again. Thus he called his own body : he
spake, saith the evangelist, of the temple of his body. That other fa-
bric was a type thereof, and so partook of the same name with it : but
yet was no farther a temple, or a habitation of God, but as it was typi-
cal of that body of his, wherein the fulness of the Godhead did dwell.
This testimony of his seemeth to have provoked the Jews above any
other, unless it was that, when he plainly declared his divine nature
unto them, affirming that he was before Abraham ; for this cast them
into so much madness, as that immediately they took up stones to cast
at him, John viii. 58, 59. But their malice was more inveterate against
VER. 11.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 81
him for what he thus spake concerning the temple ; for three years after,
when they conspired to take away his life, they made these words the
ground of their accusation. But as is usual in such cases, when they
could not pretend that his own words, as he spake them, were criminal,
they variously wrested them, to make an appearance of a crime, though
they knew not of what nature. So the Psalmist prophesied that they
should do, Ps. lvi. 5, 6. Some of them affirmed him to have said, ' I
am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days,'
Matt. xxvi. 61, which was apparently false, as is evident in comparing
his words with theirs. Wherefore, others of them observing that the
witness was not yet home unto their purpose, and the design of the
priests, they swear positively that he. said, ' I will destroy this temple
made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without
hands,' Mark xiv. 58. For they are not the words of the same per-
sons, variously reported by the evangelist. For those in Mark are
other witnesses, which agreed not with what was sworn before, as he
observes, ver. 59. ' But neither so did their witness agree together.'
However, they fix on a notion that was passant among them, of a tem-
ple to be built without hands. And sundry things there are in the pro-
phets, which led them into an apprehension, that God would dwell
among men in a temple or tabernacle, that should not be made with
hands. And all their predictions were accomplished, when the eternal
Word, by the assumption of our nature, fixed his tabernacle among us,
John i. 14.
This is that which the apostle intimates. Whereas Solomon openly
affirms, that the habitation of God could not be in the temple that he
had built, because it was made with hands; and it is a principle of na-
tural light, that he who made the world, and all things contained
therein, could not dwell in such a temple ; and whereas it seems to have
belonged unto the faith of the church of old, that there should be a
temple, wherein God would dwell, that was to be a\ei^oTrou]To^, in
comparing the human nature of Christ with the old tabernacle, he af-
firms, in the first place, that it" was not made with hands.
Respect also is had herein unto the framing of the fabric of the old
tabernacle by Bezaleel. For although the pattern of it was shown unto
Moses in the mount from heaven, yet the actual framing and erection
of it was by the hands of workmen, skilful to work in all kind of
earthly materials, Exod. xxxv. 30 — 35, xxxvi. 1. And although, by
ii of the wisdom, cunning, and skill, which they had received in an
extraordinary way, they framed, made, and reared a tabernacle most ar-
tificial and beautiful ; yet, when all was done, it was but the work of
men's hands. But the constitution and production of the human na-
ture of Christ, was an immediate effect of the wisdom and power of
God himself, Luke i. 35. Nothing of human wisdom or contrivance —
nothing of the skill or power of man — had the least influence into, or
concurrence in the provision of this glorious tabernacle, wherein the
work of the redemption of the church was effected. The body of Christ
indeed was made of a woman, of the substance of the blessed virgin ;
but she was purely passive therein, and concurrent in no efficiency,
VOL. IV. G
82 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cH. IX.
either moral or physical, thereunto. It was the contrivance of divine
wisdom, and the effect of divine power alone.
2. The apostle adds, as a farther dissimilitude unto the other taber-
nacle, ' that is not of this building,' rovreariv ov TavTr\g rrjc KTioewg.
Expositors generally take these words to be merely exegetical of the
former, ' not made with hands ; ' that is, not of this building. To me
there seems to be an av^naig in them. It is so not made with hands
like unto that tabernacle, as that it is not of the order of any other
created thing : not of the same make and constitution with any thing
else in the whole creation here below. For although the substance of
his human nature was of the same kind with ours, yet the production of
it in the world, was such an act of divine power, as excels all other di-
vine operations whatever. Wherefore, God speaking of it, saith, 'The
Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a
man,' Jer. xxxi. 22, or conceive him without natural generation.
Ktktiq is the word whereby the creation of all things is constantly
expressed in the New Testament, and sometimes it signifies the things
that are created. Neither is it ever used, nor kti^w, whence it is de-
rived, to signify the constitution of the ordinances of the Old Testa-
ment, the tabernacle, the temple, or any thing belonging thereunto.
Wherefore, ravrrjg here doth not limit it unto that constitution, so as
that ' not of this building,' should be, ' not made with hands,' as that
tabernacle was. It is therefore not of the order of created things here
below, either such as were immediately created at the beginning, or
educed out of them by a creating act or power. For although it was
so as unto its substance, yet in its constitution and production it was an
effect of the divine power above the whole order of this creation, or
things created.
Obs. VII. God is so far from being obliged unto any means for
the effecting of the holy counsels of his will, that he can, when he
pleaseth, exceed the whole order and course of the first creation of all
things, and his providence in the rule thei'eof.
Ver. 12. — From the comparison between the tabernacle of old and
that of the high priest of the new covenant, there is a procedure in this
verse unto another, between his sacerdotal actings and those of the high
priest under the law. And whereas, in the description of the taberna-
cle and its special services, the apostle had insisted, in a peculiar man-
ner, on the entrance of the high priest every year into the most holy
place, which was the most solemn and most mystical part of the ta-
bernacle service : in the first place, he gives an account of what an-
swered thereunto, in the sacerdotal administrations of Christ; and here
he shows how much, on all accounts, both of the sacrifice, in the virtue
whereof he entered into the most holy place ; and of the place itself
whereinto he entered ; and of the time when he entered ; it did excel
that service of the high priest under the law, both in glory and efficacy.
Vi:K, 12.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 83
\ ER. 12. — Ovde St' ul/iaTog rpaywv Kai /xoa^iov, dtu Ss tov tStou
alfiarog uai)\%tv a(pana% tig ra ayia, aiwvtav XvTpioaiv evpa/jitvoQ.
Am 8f tov tdiov alfxarog, Syr. mTD2"r WaTQ, 'by the blood of his own
soul or life.' He made his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10. Blood
is the life of the sacrifice. E^a7ra^. Syr. pi nipt, ' one time ; ' not many
times, not once every year, as they did under the law. Et£ ra ayia,
Syr. tWTpn Tr-nb, ' into the house of the sanctuary,' less properly ; for
by that expression, the old tabernacle is intended ; but the apostle re-
spects heaven itself, in sancta, sancta sanctorum, sacrarium. That
which answers unto the most holy place in the tabernacle, where was
the throne of God, the ark, and mercy-seat. Aiwvtav Xvrpwmv svpa-
/uti'oc. Vul. Lat. ' /E tern a redemptione inventa ; aeternam redeniptionem
nactus ; aeterna redemptione acquisita;' most properly, and according
unto the use of the word in all good authors.
Ver. 12. — Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered in once into the (most) holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption.
In this verse, the apostle enters directly on the consideration of the
great mystery of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, especially as to the sa-
crifice he offered to make atonement for sin. But the method in which
the apostle proceedeth is what he was led to, by the proposal he had
made of the types of it under the law. Wherefore, he begins with the
complement or consequent of it, in answer unto that act or duty of the
high priest, wherein the glory of his office was most conspicuous, which
he had newly mentioned.
And here, because part of our design in the exposition of this whole
Epistle is to free and vindicate the sense of it from the corrupt glosses
which the Socinians, and some that follow them, have cast upon it ; I
shall on this great head of the sacrifice of Christ particularly insist on
the removal of these. And indeed, (he substance of all that, is scattered
up and down their writings, against the proper sacrifice of Christ, and
the true nature of liis sacerdotal office, is comprised in the comment on
this Epistle, composed by Crellius and Slichtingius. I shall, there-
fore, first examine their corrupt wrestings of the words, and false inter-
pretations of them, before I proceed unto their exposition.
They begin, ' Nunc etiam opponit sacrificium ipsius Christi, sacrifi-
cio pontificis antiqui.' This is the irpuTov ^tuSoc of their interpreta-
tion of this and the following verses. If this be not so, all that they
afterwards assert or infer from it, falls of itself. But this is most false.
There is not any thing directly, either of the sacrifice of Christ or of
the high priest, but only what was consequent unto the one and the
other: yea, there is that which excludes them from being intended.
The entrance of the high priest intp the holy place was not his sacri-
fice. For his sacrifice is supposed to be offered before, in the virtue
whereofj and with the memorial of which, he so entered ; that is, with
the blood of goats and calves. For all sacrifices were offered at the
g 2
84 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CH. IX.
brazen altar. And that of the high priest on the day of expiation, is
expressly declared so to have been, Lev. xvi. And the entrance of
Christ into heaven was not his sacrifice, nor the oblation of himself;
for he offered himself unto God, with strong cries and supplications;
but his entrance into heaven was triumphant. He entered into heaven
by virtue of his sacrifice, as we shall see ; but his entrance into heaven
was not the sacrifice of himself.
They add in explication hereof: — 'Pontifex antiquus per sanguinem
hircorum et vitulorum ingrediebatur in sancta, Christus vero non per
sanguinem tarn vilem, sed pretiosissimum ; quod alius esse non potuit
quam ipsius proprius. Nam sanguis quidem humanus sanguine bruto-
rum, sed sanguis Christi, sanguine caeterorum omnium hominum longe
est pretiosior ; cum ipse quoque caeteris hominibus omnibus imo omni-
bus creaturis longe sit praestantior, Deoque charior et proprior, utpote
unigenitus ejus filius.' What they say of the preciousness of the blood
of Christ above that of brute creatures, is true : but they give two rea-
sons for it, which comprise not the true reason of its excellency, as
unto the ends of his sacrifice. 1. They say, it was the blood of a man.
2. That this man was more dear to God than all other creatures, as
his only begotten Son. Take these last words in the sense of the
Scripture, and the true reason of the preciousness and efficacy of the
blood of Christ in his sacrifice, is assigned. Take them in their sense,
and it is excluded. The Scripture by the Son of God intends his eter-
nal generation as the Son of the Father ; they intend only his nativity of
the blessed virgin, with his exaltation after his resurrection. But the
true excellency and efficacy of the blood of Christ in this sacrifice, was
from his divine person, whereby God purchased his church with his
own blood, Acts xx. 28.
Nor do I know of what consideration the preciousness of the blood
of Christ can be with them in this matter ; for it belonged not unto his
sacrifice or the oblation of himself, as they pretend. For they would
have the offering of himself to consist only in his entrance into heaven,
and appearing in the presence of God, when, as they also imagine, he
had neither flesh nor blood.
They proceed unto a speculation about the use and signification of
the preposition, per, ' by,' or
istius comparationis consuleret, usum esse in priori membro voce, per ;
licet pontifex legalis non tantum per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum,
hoc est, fuso prius sanguine istorum animalium, seu interveniente san-
guinis eorum fusione, sed etiam cum ipsorum sanguine in sancta fuerit
ingressus, ver. 7. Verum quia in Christi sacrificio similitudo eousque
extendi non potuit, cum Christus non alienum sed suum sanguinem" fu-
derit, nee sanguinem suum post mortem, sed seipsum, et quidem jam
immortalem, depositis carnis et sanguinis exuviis, quippe quae regnum
Dei possidere nequeant, in coelesti illo tabernaculo obtulerit; proinde-
que non cum sanguine, sed tantum fuso prius sanguine, seu interveni-
ente sanguinis sui fusione in sancta fuerit ingressus ; idcirco autor minus
de legali pontifice dixit quam res erat : vel potius ambiguitate parti-
cular, per, qua? etiam idem quod, cum, in sacris Uteris significare solet,
comparationis concinnitati consulere voluit.'
VER. [2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 85
The design of this whole discourse is to overthrow the nature of the
sacrifice of Christ, and to destroy all the real similitude between it and
the sacrifice of the high priest ; the whole of its sophistry being ani-
mated by a fancied signification of the preposition per, or falsely pre-
tended reason of the use of it by the apostle. For, 1. The high priest
did indeed carry of the blood of the sacrifice into the holy place, and so
may be said to enter into it with blood ; as it is said he did it, ( not with-
out blood,' ver. 7. Yet is it not that which the apostle hath here re-
spect unto ; but it was the sacrifice at the altar, where the blood of it
was shed and' offered, which he intends, as we shall see immediately.
2. There is, therefore, nothing less ascribed unto the high priest herein
than belonged unto him ; for all that is intended, is, that he entered
into the holy place by virtue of the blood of goats and calves, which
was offered at the altar ; less than his due is not ascribed unto him, to
make the comparison fit and meet, as is boldly pretended. Yea, 3. The
nature of the comparison used by the apostle, is destroyed by this arti-
fice ; especially if it be not considered as a mere comparison, but as the
relation that was between the type and the antitype. For that is the
nature of the comparison that the apostle makes between the entrance
of the high priest into the holy place, and the entrance of Christ into
heaven. That there may be such a comparison, that there may be such
a relation between these things, it is needful that they should really
agree in that wherein they are compared, and not by force or artifice
be fitted to make some kind of resemblance, the one of the other. For-
it is to no purpose to compare things together which disagree in all
things ; much less can such things be the types one of another. Where-
fore, the apostle declares and allows a treble dissimilitude in the com-
parates, or between the type and the antitype. For Christ entered by
his own blood ; the high priest, by the blood of calves and goats :
Christ, only once ; the high priest every year : Christ, into heaven ; the
high priest, into the tabernacle made with hands. But in other things
he confirms a similitude between them ; namely, in the entrance of the
high priest into the holy place by the blood of his sacrifice, or with it.
But by these men this is taken away, and so no ground of any compa-
rison left; only the apostle makes use of an ambiguous word, to frame
an appearance of some similitude in the things compared, whereas, in-
deed, there is none at all. For to these ends, he says, ' by the blood,'
whereas he ought to have said, ' with the blood;' but if he had said so,
there would have been no appearance of any similitude between the
things compared. For they allow not Christ to enter into the holy
place, by or with his own blood, in any sense ; not by virtue of it, as
milled in sacrifice for us ; nor to make application of it unto us, in the
fruits of his oblation for us. And what similitude is there between the
high priest entering into the holy \ lace, by the blood of the sacrifice
that he had offered, and the Lord Christ's entering into heaven without
his own blood, or without any respect unto the virtue of it, as offered in
sacrifice i 3. This notion of the sacrifice or oblation of Christ, to con-
sist only in his appearance in heaven without flesh or blood, as they
speak, overthrows all the relation of types or representations between it
and the sacrifices of old. Nay, on that supposition they were suited
86 an Exposition of the [cii. ix.
rather to deceive the church than instruct it in the nature of the great
expiatory sacrifice that was to be made by Christ. For the universal
testimony of them all was, that atonement and expiation of sin was to
be made by blood, and no otherwise. But according unto these men,
Christ offered not himself unto God for the expiation of our sins, until
he had neither flesh nor blood. 4. They say, it is true he offered him-
self in heaven, ' fuso prius sanguine.' But it is an order of -time, and
not of causality, which they intend. His blood was shed before, but
therein was no part of his offering or sacrifice. But herein they ex-
pressly contradict the Scripture and themselves. It is by the offering
of Christ that our sins are expiated and redemption obtained. This the
Scripture dotli so expressly declare, as that they cannot directly deny
it. But these things are constantly ascribed unto the blood of Christ
and the shedding of it ; and yet they would have it that Christ offered
himself then only, when he had neither flesh nor blood.
They increase this confusion in their ensuing discourse. Aliter enim
ex parte Christi res sese habuit, quam in illo antiquo. In antiquo illo,
ut in aliis quae pro peccato lege divina constituta erant, non offerebatur
ipsum animal mactatum, hoc est, nee in odorem suavitatis, ut Scriptura
loquitur, adolebatur, sed renes ejus et adeps tantum ; nee inferebatur
in sancta, sed illius sanguis tantum. In Christi autem sacrificio, non
sanguis ipsius quern mactatus effudit, sed ipse offerri, et in ilia sancta
ccelestia ingredi debuit. Idcirco infra, ver. 14, dicitur, seipsum, non
vero sanguinem suum Deo obtulisse; licet alias comparatio cum
sacrificiis expiatoriis postulare videretur, ut hoc posterius potius doce-
retur.
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 agree-
ment 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 dis-
similitude, in that Christ's was by his own blood, that of the high
priest's by the blood of calves and goats. But according to the sense
of these men, herein consists the difference between them, that the one
was with blood, and the other without, which is expressly contradictory
to the apostle.
2. What they observe of the sacrifices of old, that not the bodies 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 pur-
pose. For, 1. The whole bodies of the expiatory sacrifices, 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 offering of his
body without the city, as the apostle observes, ch. xiii. 11, 12. 2.
They allow of no use of the blood in sacrifices, but only as to the
carrying of it into the holy place; which is expressly contradictory unto
the main end of the institution of expiatory 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,
VER. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 87
that in ver. 14, the Lord Christ is said to offer himself, and not to offer
his blood, is of no value. For in the offering of his blood, Christ
offered himself; 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 Christ purge your con-
sciences 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 ;' Ingressus in sancta, necessai'io ad sacrificium istud requiritur.
Nee ante oblatio, in qua sacrificii ratio potissimum consistit, peragi
potuit, cum ea in Sanctis ipsis fieri debuerit. Hinc manifestum est pon-
tificis nostri oblationem et sacrificium non in cruce, sed in ccelis
peractam esse, et adhuc peragi.
Ansio. 1. What they say at first, is true ; but what they intend and
infer from thence, is false. It is true that the entrance ipto the holy
place, and carrying of the blood in thither, did belong unto the anniver-
sary 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-offering 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 every-where represents that to
consist absolutely in one offering, once offered, not repeated or con-
tinued. Herein lies the foundation of all his arguments for its
excellency and efficacy. Of this, the making it to be nothing but a
continued act of power in heaven, as is done by them, is utterly destruc-
tive.
What they add in the same place about the nature of redemption,
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, t vpafizvog, ' having obtained ;' but it was done
by his entrance itself into that holy place, whence they would rather
read the word zvpa/xtvog in the present tense, ' obtaining.' But