natures, is true, and the constant opinion of all protestant 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 actings do proceed. It is not hence required, that whatever he doth in the discharge of his office, must be an 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; although those acts be immediately performed in and by virtue of his distinct natures, some of one, some of another, according to their distinct properties and powers. Hence are they all theandrical; 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,

1st. 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 condescension, with respect unto the order of their subsistence. So the Holy Ghost is in peculiar the comforter of the church, by the way of 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 persons in the blessed Trinity should answer the order of their subsistence; and so he who in 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.

2dly. The divine nature, considered in the abstract, cannot serve in an office; yet He who was in the form of God, and counted it no robbery to be equal unto God, took on him the form of a servant, and was 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 discharge 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 Christ. And two things are to be inquired hereon. 1. What is meant by ro aiua, the blood of Christ.' 2. How this effect was wrought by

it.

First. It is not only that material blood which he shed, absolutely considered, that is here and elsewhere called the blood of Christ, when

the work of our redemption is ascribed unto it, that is intended. But there is a double consideration of it with respect unto its efficacy unto 1. That it was the pledge and the sign, of all the internal obedience and sufferings of the soul of Christ, of his person. He became obedient unto death, the death of the cross, whereon his blood was shed. This was the great instance of his obedience, and of his sufferings, whereby he made reconciliation and atonement for sin. Hence the effects of all his sufferings, and of all obedience in his sufferings, are ascribed unto his blood. 2. Respect is had unto the sacrifice and offering of blood under the law. The reason why God gave the people the blood to make atonement on the altar, was because the life of the flesh was in it, Lev. xvii. 11, 14. So was the life of Christ in his blood, by the shedding whereof he laid it down. And by his death it is, as he was the Son of God, that we are redeemed. Herein he made his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10. Wherefore this expression of the blood of Christ,' in order unto our redemption, or the expiation of sin, is comprehensive of all that he did and suffered for those ends, inasmuch as the shedding of it, was the way and means whereby he offered it, or himself (in and by it) unto God.

Secondly. The second inquiry is, how the effect here mentioned was wrought by the blood of Christ. And this we cannot determine, without a general consideration of the effect itself; and this,

3. We must next examine; namely, the purging of our conscience from dead works, καθαριεί την συνείδησιν. Καθαριεί, shall purge: that is, say some, shall purify and sanctify, by internal, inherent sanctification. But neither the sense of the word, nor the context, nor the exposition given by the apostle of this very expression, ch. x. 1, 2, will admit of this restrained sense. I grant it is included herein, but there is somewhat else principally intended, namely, the expiation of sin, with our justification and peace with God thereon.

1. For the proper sense of the word here used, see our exposition on ch. i. 3. Expiation, lustration, carrying away punishment by making atonement, are expressed by it in all good authors.

2. The context requires this sense in the first place., For,

First. The argument here used, is immediately applied to prove that Christ hath obtained for us, eternal redemption. But redemption consists not in internal sanctification only, although that be a necessary consequent of it: but it is the pardon of sin through the atonement made, or a price paid. 'In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.' Eph. i. 7.

Secondly. In the comparison insisted on, there is distinct mention made of the blood of bulls and goats, as well as of the ashes of a heifer sprinkled. But the first and principal use of blood in sacrifice, was to make atonement for sin, Lev. xvii. 11.

Thirdly. The end of this purging, is to give boldness in the service of God, and peace with him therein, that we may serve the living God. But this is done by the expiation and pardon of sin, with justification

thereon.

Fourthly. It is conscience that is said to be purged. Now conscience is the proper seat of the guilt of sin; it is that which chargeth it on the

soul, and which hinders all approach unto God in his service, with liberty and boldness, unless it be removed; which,

Fifthly. Gives us the best consideration of the apostle's exposition of this expression, ch. x. 1, 2. For he there declares, that to have the conscience purged, is to have its condemning power for sin taken away, and made to cease.

There is, therefore, under the same name, a twofold effect here ascribed unto the blood of Christ; the one in answer and opposition unto the effect of the blood of bulls and goats being offered; the other in answer unto the effect of the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled. The first consisting in making atonement for our sins; the other, in the sanctification of our persons. And there are two ways whereby these things are procured by the blood of Christ. 1. By its offering, whereby sin is expiated. 2. By its sprinkling, whereby our persons are sanctified. The first ariseth from the satisfaction he made to the justice of God, by undergoing (in his death) the punishment due to us, being made therein a curse for us, that the blessing might come upon us; therein, as his death was a sacrifice, as he offered himself unto God in the shedding of his blood, he made atonement. The other from the virtue of his sacrifice applied unto us by the Holy Spirit, which is the sprinkling of it; so doth the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, cleanse us from all our sins.

The Socinian expositor on this place, endeavours, by a long perplexed discourse, to evade the force of this testimony, wherein the expiation of sin is directly assigned to 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.

1st. That the expiation of sin, is our deliverance from the punishment due to sin, by the power of Christ in heaven. But this is diametrically opposite both to the true nature of it, and to the representation made of it in the sacrifices of old, whereunto it is compared by the apostle, and from whence he argueth. Neither is this a tolerable exposition of the words. The blood of Christ, in answer to 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!

2dly. That Christ was not a priest till after his ascension into heaven. That this supposition destroys the whole nature of that office, hath been sufficiently declared before.

3dly. That his offering himself to 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 sacrifice, so what is asserted 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.

4thly. That the resurrection of Christ gave all efficacy to 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.

5thly. 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 to them; namely, that the blood of Christ, that is, his suffering in soul and body, and his obedience therein, testified and expressed in the shedding of his blood, was the procuring cause of the expiation of our sins, the purging of our consciences from dead works, our justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God thereon. And,

Obs. III. There is nothing more destructive to 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 on 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, useless and unintelligible, and overthrows the foundation of the gospel.

Secondly. 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 considered.

There is declared what Christ did to 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; by the eternal Spirit.' 4. With what qualifications, without spot.' First. He offered himself, tavrov πpoonvεykev. To prove that his blood purgeth 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 to 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 concurring 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 obedience in suffering was that which rendered this offering of himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour to God.

And he is said thus to offer himself, in opposition to the sacrifices of the high priest 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 Lord Christ as the high priest of the church, wherein, according to the will of God, and what was required of him by virtue of the eternal compact between the 'Father and him, concerning the redemption of the church, he gave up 'himself in the way of most profound obedience, to do and suffer what'ever the justice and law of God required to the expiation of sin, ex'pressing the whole by the shedding of his blood, in answer to all the 'typical representations of this his sacrifice, in all the institutions of the 'law.' And this offering of Christ was proper sacrifice;

(1.) From the office whereof it was an act: it was an act of his sacerdotal office; he was made a priest of God for this end, that he might thus offer himself, and that this offering of himself should be a sacrifice.

(2.) From the nature of it; for it consisted in the sacred giving up to God the thing that was offered, in the present destruction or consumption of it. This is the nature of a sacrifice; it was the destruction and consumption by death and fire, by a sacred action, of what was dedicated and offered to God. So was it in this sacrifice of Christ. As he suffered in it, so in the giving himself up to God in it, there was an effusion of his blood, and the destruction of his life.

(3.) From the end of it, which was assigned to it in the wisdom and sovereignty of God, and in his own intention, which was to make atonement for sin, which gives an offering the formal nature of an expiatory sacrifice.

(4.) From the way and manner of it. For therein,

1st. He sanctified or dedicated himself to God, to be an offering, John xvii. 19.

2dly. He accompanied it with prayers and supplications, Heb. v. 7. 3dly. There was an altar which sanctified the offering, which bore it up in its oblation, which was his own divine nature, as we shall see immediately.

4thly. He kindled the sacrifice with the fire of divine love, acting itself by zeal to God's glory, and compassion to the souls of men.

5thly. He tendered all this to God, as an atonement for sin, as we shall see in the next words.

This was the free, real, proper sacrifice of Christ, whereof those of old were only types and obscure representations: the prefiguration hereof was the sole cause of their institution. And what the Socinians pretend, namely, that the Lord Christ offered no real sacrifice, but only what he did was called so metaphorically, by the way of allusion to the sacrifices of the law, is so far from truth, that there never would have been any such sacrifices of divine appointment, had they not been designed to prefigure this which alone was really and substantially so. The Holy Ghost doth not make a forced accommodation of what Christ did to those sacrifices of old, by way of allusion, and by reason of some resemblances, but shows the uselessness and weakness of those sacrifices in themselves, any farther than as they represented this of Christ. The nature of this oblation and sacrifice of Christ is utterly overthrown by the Socinians. They deny that in all this there was any offering at all; they deny that his shedding of his blood, or any thing