hands-on this supposition, the apostle grants that "he could not be a priest" at all in any sense. He offered his great expiatory sacrifice not on the earth, in the sense of the lare. Although the sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth; yet the whole service belonging to it, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, was not nor could be; because the church could then have enjoyed no benefit thereby.

"Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." (OVINY TWY LEPNY, Sacerdotibus existentibus; cum sint sacerdotes) whereas there are priests. The apostle doth not grant that at the time when he wrote this epistle, there were legal priests, de jure, offering sacrifices according to the law. Indeed, de facto, there were; wherefore, (avlwv) being, or seeing there are, respects the legal institutions of the priests and their right to officiate when the Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to "offer gifts according to the law."

§3. Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these words and the force of the reasons in them.

First, Why might not the Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth, to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according to the law?

Secondly, Why did he not first abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood?

§4. I answer to the first, that if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sac

rifices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them, being of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood. And therefore he could not offer the same sacrifices with them, for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be. For there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Wherefore, whilst they continue priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his office had been on the earth together with theirs, he could not be a priest among them.

$5. Unto the second inquiry, I say, the Lord Christ could not by any means take away that other priesthood, until he himself had accomplished all that was signified thereby, according to God's institution. The whole end and design of God in its institution had been frustrated, if the office had ceased, de jure, before the whole of what was prefigured was fulfilled. And therefore although there was an intercession of its administrations for seventy years during the Babylonish captivity, yet was the office itself continued in its right and dignity, because what it designed to prefigure was not yet attained. And this was not done until the Lord Redeemer ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, to administer in the presence of God for the church.

$6. This therefore is the sense of the apostle's reasoning in this place: the priests of the order of Aaron continued, de jure, their administrations of holy things, until all was accomplished that was signified thereby; which was not done until the ascension of Christ into heaven. For the first tabernacle was to stand until

the way was made open into the holiest of all; now the Lord Messiah was not a priest after their order, nor could he offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. Hence it is evident, that he could not have been a priest, had he been to continue and administer on earth, for so their priesthood, with which his was inconsistent, could never have had an end. For this could not be without his entrance as a priest into the heavenly sanctuary.

It appears therefore how vain is the pretence of the Socinians from this place, to prove that Christ did not offer his expiatory sacrifice on the earth. For the apostle speaks nothing of his oblation, (which he had before declared to have been once for all) before he entered into heaven to make intercession for us; but only of the order of his priesthood, and the state and condition wherein the present administration of it was to be continued.

§7. (III.) Obs. 1. God's institutions rightly stated do never interfere. So we see those of the ancient priesthood and that of Christ did not. They had both of them their proper bounds and seasons; nor could the latter completely take place, until the former had expired. The entrance of Christ into the holy place, which stated him in that condition wherein he was to continue the exercise of his priesthood to the consummation of all things, put an absolute period to the former priesthood, by accomplishing all that was thereby signified.

$8. Obs. 2. The discharge of all the parts and duties of the priestly office of Christ in their proper order were needful to the salvation of the church. His oblation was to be on the earth, but the continued discharge of his office was to be in heaven. Without this the former would not profit us; if he had done

no more he could not have been a priest. Unless the foundation of a propitiation for our sins be first laid we can have no hopes of acceptance with God; but when this is done, unless we have a continual applica tion of the efficacy of it to our souls, neither our peace with God nor our access to him can be maintained.

VERSE 5.

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, saith he, that thou make all things accord.. ing to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

$1. The connexion of this passage with the preceding discourse. $2. (I.) Exposition of the words. $3. God's admonition to Moses. $4, Concerning the pattern shewn to Moses on the mount. Not an etherial fabric; but §5. I he incarnation and mediation of Christ. §6. Objection answered. §7. (II.) Observations.

§1. THE Connexion of these words with the preceding discourse, which gives us the general design of the apostle, is to be previously considered. He had before intimated that the high priests according to the law did not minister the heavenly things-and that' the Lord Christ alone did so: whence he concludes his dignity and pre-eminence above them. The argument in general whereby the apostle proves that they served to the "example and shadow of heavenly things," and no more, is taken from the words of God to Moses. And the force of it is evident; for God in those words declares that there was something above and beyond that material tabernacle which was prescribed to him. For he shewed him an original or an exemplar, when on the top of the mount, which the tabernacle below did but represent; and therefore they who ministered in it could serve only as "the example and shadow of heavenly things." This therefore is the apostle's argument from this testimony; "If

God shewed to Moses on the top of the mount that which was heavenly, and he was to make an example or shadow of it, then they that ministered therein served only to the example and shadow of heavenly thing s.

$7. (I.) "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (Olives) who, refers to the priests mentioned ver. 4: "Seeing that they are priests," &c. particularly to the high priests. ver. 3; (xas yap apXIEpeus) "for every high priest;" which high priests (halpeuso) do serve; it is a sacred word, and signifies only to minister in holy worship and service; it respects therefore all that the high priests did, in the worship of God, in the tabernacle or temple. "Unto the example," (unodaypal,) for a specimen; that whereby any thing is manifested by a part or instance; a resem blance, an obscure representation. Hence it is added, (na ona) "and the shadow." Some suppose a shadow is here taken artificially, and opposed to an express image or complete delineation of any thing; as the first lines in comparison of any thing that is afterwards to be drawn to the life. Others take it naturally, as opposed to body or material substance. See Col. ii, 17. It is indifferent in whether sense we here take the word, for what is affirmed is true in both. If we take it in the first way, it intends that obscure delineation of heavenly mysteries, which was in the legal institutions. If it be used in the last way, then it declares that the substance of what God intended in all his worship was not contained in the services of those priests. There were some lines and shadows to represent the body, but the body itself was not there. "Of heavenly things." The things which God shewed to Moses on the mount.

སྐ