{2cUy.) In regard of application. The blood of common sacrifices being once shed was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor effi- cacy; it could not possibly be a "living way" for us to come to God by, nor could it be preserved to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the sinner.
Hence doth the apostle make it evident, in the first place, that Christ was not to offer any of the sacrifices which former priests had offered, first. Because it was utterly impossible that by such sacrifices the end of the sacrifice which he was to offer should be accomplished. This also he proves, secondly. Because God had expressly disallowed those sacrifices as to that end. Not only it was impossible in the nature of the thing itself, but also God had absolutely rejected the tender of them as to the taking away sin and bringing sinners to God.
But it may be said, " Did not God appoint them for that end and purpose, as was spoken before? The end of the sacrifice in the day
i
OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. • 425
of expiation was to atone and cleanse: Lev. xvi. 30, ' On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you ' (for the priest made an atonement actively, by offering the sacrifice; the sacrifice itself passively, by undergoing the penalty of death : Christ, who was both priest and sacrifice, did both.) " I answer. They were never appointed of God to accomplish that end by auy real worth and efficacy of their own, but merely to typify, prefigure, and point out, him and that which did the work which they represented; and so served, as the apostle speaks, " until the time of reformation,"' Heb. ix. 10. They served the use of that people in the under-age condition wherein God was pleased to keep them.
But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose, the apostle proves by the testimony of David, speaking of the acceptance of Christ: Ps. xl. 6, 7, " Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come," etc. ; which the apostle insists on, Heb. x. 5-9. There are several accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of sac- rifices which yet were of his own institution : — First, In respect of the hypocrisy of the offerers. That people being grown formal and cor- rupt, trusted in sacrifices and the work wrought in them, and said that by them they should be justified : God, expressing his indignation against such sacrifices, or the sacrifices of such persons, rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted, that is, in reference to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost, Isa. i. 12, 13. But this is not the cause of their rejection in this place of the psalmist, for he speaketh of them who walked with God in upright- ness and waited for his salvation, even of himself and other saints, as appears in the context, verse 1, etc. Secondly, Comparatively. They are rejected as to the outward work of them, in comparison of his more spiritual worship, as Ps. 1. 12-14. But neither are they here rejected on that account, nor is there mention of any opposition be- tween the outward worship of sacrifice and any other more spiritual and internal part thereof, but between sacrifice and the boring of the ears, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expressly, verse 6.
Their rejection, then, here mentioned, is in reference to that which is asserted in opposition to them, and in reference to the end for which that is asserted. Look to what end Christ had a body fitted and prepared, for and to that end, and the compassing of it, are all sacrifices rejected of God. Now, this was to take away sin, so that as to that end are they rejected.
And here, in our passage, may we remove what the Racovian Cate- chism gives us as the difference between the expiation under the old testament and that under the new; concerning which, cap. de Mun. Chris. Sacer. q. 5, they thus inquire: —
426 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
Q. What is the difference "between the expiation of sin in the old and new testa- ment ?
A. The expiation of sins under the new testament is not only much different from that under the old, but also is far better and more excellent ; and that chiefly for two causes. The first is, that under the old testament, expiation by those legal sacrifices was appointed only for those sins which happened upon imprudence and infirmity ; from whence they were also called infirmities and ignorances : but for greater sins, such as were manifest transgressions of the command of God, there were no sacrifices instituted, but the punishment of death was proposed to them ; and if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by virtue of the covenant, but of singular mercy, which God, beside the covenant, did afford when and to whom he would. But under the new covenant, not only those sins are expiated which happen by imprudence and infirmity, but those also which are transgressions of most evident commands of God, whilst he who happened so to fall doth not con- tinue therein, but is changed by true repentance, and falleth not into that sin again. The latter cause is, because under the old testament expiation of sins was so performed that only temporal punishment was taken away from them whose sins were expiated; but under the new the expiation is such as not only takes away temporal but eternal punishment, and in their stead offers eternal life, pro- mised in the covenant, to them whose sins are expiated.'