that ever was or ever could be performed. It was more than all men or all angels, more than the whole creation in a body together, could have done towards the pacifying of God and reconciling of man; and therefore it was as the richest perfume, having a most delightful fragrancy, such as none other can come up to, inasmuch as that therein God is well pleased.

To make this appear the more distinctly, we may consider, first, the PRIEST: secondly, the SACRIFICE: thirdly, the ALTAR: and lastly, the Divine LAWGIVER to whom the offering was made, and by whom it was and is accepted.

1. A PRIEST, properly speaking, is a person "taken "from among men," authorized by God to be an advocate for them at the court of heaven. As a prophet or an apostle properly is an ambassador from God to treat with men; so a priest is an agent or solicitor, in behalf of men, to treat with God. Our Lord was both a Prophet and Priest, in different views: but here we are to consider him in his sacerdotal capacity only; in which capacity he made his offering and sacrifice for sins. He is a Priest of an higher order than the order of Aaron, the order of Melchizedek, whose priesthood was royal: for he was king of Salem, which, in mystical construction, is king of peace. Melchizedek undoubtedly was a mortal man ; yet, to make him the fitter type of Christ, he is introduced as a priest, and no notice taken either of his birth or his decease: as if, like Christ, he had had no beginning of days, nor were to have end of life. He was introduced as blessing Abraham, the father of the faithful, to intimate that Christ's priesthood was to extend to all the faithful, in all past, present, and future ages; and not to be confined, like Aaron's, to the Jews only, commencing with their economy, expiring with it. And it is farther observable, that Melchizedek, as introduced in Genesis, brought no typical offerings or sacrifices, as

a Hebr. v. 1.

Aaron was wont to do: he presented nothing to God but himself, and his pious and benevolent offices; in which he was so far a type of Christ, (though very imperfectly,) as Christ also offered himself and his all-sufficient services, active and passive, unto God. Melchizedek further exercised his high priesthood, in blessing the father of the faithful, and feeding him with bread and wine; correspondently to which, our Lord, as High Priest, blesses all the faithful with all spiritual blessings b, and feeds them with the bread of heaven, the wine of angels, with his own body and blood. But my business at present is, not with the blessings consequent upon our Lord's sacrifice, but with the sacrifice itself of which the text speaks.

2. The text mentions both offering and sacrifice: our Lord was both. He "hath given himself for us an offer❝ing and a sacrifice." The word offering is of somewhat larger meaning than the word sacrifice: for every sacrifice is an offering to God, but every offering to God is not a sacrifice. However, the word offering, in this place, does not mean offering as different from sacrifice, but as sacrifice taken in a larger sense, and different from sacrifice in a stricter acceptation. There were under the Old Testament offerings of fine flour, otherwise called meal offerings, or bread offerings; and there were animal sacrifices of sheep, goats, bullocks. The meal offerings are here alluded to under the name of offering, and the animal sacrifices under the name of sacrifice. They were both of them gifts to God, both of them sacrifices in a just and proper sense, as sacrifice means a present made to God: and they were both of them types or figures of what Christ was to give to God in the sacrifice of himself. He is the bread of heaven, corresponding to the Jewish bread offering: he is the Lamb of God, corresponding to all the animal sacrifices. To him all those material and typical services pointed, by him they were fulfilled, and in him they expired. He was both the beginning and the end of all those ordinances :

Ephes. i. 3.

he established them at the first, to give notice of his coming; and by his coming he removed them, and took them away, when he took away our sins, "nailing them to his "cross c."

The text says, Christ gave himself: that word himself may want some explanation. His person is constituted of two natures, the Divine and human: he is in himself both God and man. The Priest who made the sacrifice is the whole Person: the sacrifice, that self in part only; for the Divine nature could not suffer, nor be made a sacrifice; only it might and did give value and dignity to the human nature, which alone was, in strictness, the sacrifice. Giving himself therefore must be understood to mean giving himself in part. For as a martyr, who gives his body only (not his soul) to be burned, is rightly said to give himself to the flames, because he gives what is part of himself; so also our blessed Lord, in sacrificing his human nature, a part of himself, is rightly said to have sacrificed himself. This sacrifice is variously expressed in holy Scripture: for sometimes it is called giving his body, sometimes his blood, sometimes his soul, sometimes his life for us: all which expressions amount to the same thing, namely, that he' died for us, died in our stead, a willing sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. And yet none of those expressions, however well they are adapted to the customary forms of speech, are, in strictness of propriety, to be compared with St. Paul's saying, that he was "obedient unto death d." For, in truth of notion and precise accuracy of expression, it was his obedience, active and passive, which was properly the sacrifice, the acceptable offering unto God. God is a Spirit, and the spiritual services are properly his delight. Perfect innocence and consummate virtue, both in doing and suffering, were, in strictness of speech, not only the flower and perfection, but the very form and essence of our Lord's sacrifice. There was found in that unfathomable mystery of Divine love, in our Lord's dying for us;

there was found, I say, not only spotless holiness and purity, but a most upright heart, and the most devout affections, breathing nothing but the most ardent affections and services for the glory of God and the salvation of men; for the general happiness, if I may so speak, of the whole rational system. Those benevolent services taken together, and all recommended by the supereminent dignity of the Person so doing and so suffering, were the sacrifice of sweet odour, the spiritual perfume, acceptable to him who alone could judge perfectly of the infinite worth and merit of it. So much for the sacrifice.

3. The third thing to be considered is the ALTAR. Priest, sacrifice, and altar have commonly been thought relatives, supposed to infer and imply each other, though that is not strictly and universally true; as might be shown at large, were this the place for it, or were it at all proper to enter here into niceties of that kind.

In this case however, Divines both ancient and modern have thought of an altar, as well as of a priest, and of a sacrifice and from the third century at least, down to this time, the cross whereon our Lord suffered has been generally esteemed and called the altar. For as the Jewish sacrifices were lifted up upon the altar erected for that purpose, so was the Son of man lifted up by the crosse. And as the altar among the Jews was used to bear or sustain the sacrifice, so the altar of the cross bore or sustained our Lord's humanity, while "himself bare our sins "in his own body on the treef."

Thus far the resemblance and analogy between the Levitical altar and the altar of the cross seem to hold very aptly; and to these two circumstances of the comparison there might be others added of inferior note. Nevertheless, similitudes should not be strained too far: because, though they may hit in several circumstances, yet will they not be found to answer in all.

One circumstance of an altar is, that it sanctifies the

gift, or sacrifice offered upon it 8. This circumstance cannot properly be applied to the altar of the cross, as sanctifying the great sacrifice. Wherefore some very judicious Divines have here thought of another altar, besides the cross, a spiritual altar; namely, the eternal Spirit, the Divine nature of our Lord, which in this case sanctified the human. It is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews h, that "Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 66 spot to God." In this view Christ was the Priest, his human nature the sacrifice, and his Divine nature the altar which sanctified the sacrifice, which supported it under all sufferings, and under the weight of the world's iniquities laid upon it, and finally added infinite value and dignity to it. So then, the cross might be the altar in some respects, and our Lord's own eternal Spirit might be the altar in others.

But after all, it must be owned that Scripture is not clear either for this kind of altar or that. The doctrine of the sacrifice is plainly Scripture doctrine: but the doctrine of the altar stands only upon Scripture consequences, drawn by interpreters, and not perhaps with such evidence as must extort the assent of every reasonable man. What need is there of a proper altar to every proper sacrifice? The notion of a sacrifice, which means a gift to God, is independent of the notion of an altar to present it upon. It was accidental to the Jewish sacrifices that they required altars, because they were generally to be consumed by fire, in whole or in part, and therefore wanted a fire hearth for that purpose: and it is far from certain that all proper sacrifices were offered upon altars. An altar seems to be no more necessary to every sacrifice, than a case, or a patine, or a pix is to every gift or present which any person may bring to another. It is a circumstance perhaps of decency, not of the substance of the present. A gift is not the less a gift for being presented naked and simple, without the formalities of a case to inclose it, or of a plate to