Ans. The emphasis of the expression, “sins under the old testa- ment,” respects either the tvme when the sins intended were com- mitted, or the testament against which they were committed. And the preposition éa/ will admit of either sense. Take it in the first way, and the argument follows “a fortiori,” as unto the sins com- mitted wnder the new testament; though there be no expiation of sins against it, which properly are only final unbelief and impeni- tency. or the expiation intended is made by the mediator of the new testament: and if he expiated the sins that were under the first testament, that is, of those who lived and died whilst that cove- nant was in force, much more doth he do so for them who live under the administration of that testament whereof he is the medi- ator; for sins are taken away by virtue of that testament where- unto they do belong. And it is with peculiar respect unto, them that the blood of Christ is called “the blood of the new festaras for the redemption of sins,’
But yet more probably the meaning may be, the sins that were and are committed against that first covenant, or the law-and rule of it. For whereas that covenant did in its administration comprise the moral law, which was the substance and foundation of it, all sins whatever have their form and nature with respect thereunto. So “sins under the first covenant,” are all sins whatever; for there is no sin committed under the gospel but it is a sin against that law which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our strength.
Either way, the sins of them who are called under the new testa- ment are included.
(2.) It is inquired whether it is the nature of the sins intended that is respected, or the persons guilty of them also under that tes- tament. The Syriac translation avoids this difficulty, by rendering the words of the abstract, “the redemption of transgressions,” in the concrete, “a redeemer unto them who had transgressed.” That it is a certain sort of sins that is intended, Socinus was the first that invented. And his invention is the foundation of the exposition
VER. 15.]° EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 329
not only of Schlichtingius, but of Grotius also on this place. Such sins they say they are, as for which no expiation was to be made by the sacrifices of the law,—sins of a greater nature than could be expiated by them; for they only made expiation of some smaller sins, as sins of ignorance, or the like. But there is no respect unto the persons of them who lived under that testament; whom they will not grant to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Wherefore, according unto them, the difference between the expiation of sin by the sacrifices of the law and that by the sacrifice of Christ, doth not consist in their nature, that the one did it only typically, and in an external representation, by the purifying of the flesh, the other really and effectually; but in this, that the one expiated lesser sins only, the other greater also.
But there is nothing sound or consonant unto the truth in this interpretation of the words. For,—
[1.] It proceeds on a false supposition,—that there were sins of the people (not only presumptuous sins, and which had impenitency in them) for which no atonement was made, nor expiation of them allowed; which is expressly contrary unto Lev. xvi. 16,21. And whereas some offences were capital amongst them, for which no atonement was allowed to free the sinner from death, yet that belonged unto the political rule of the people, and hindered not but _ that typically all sorts of sins were to be expiated.
[2.] It is contrary unto the express design of the apostle. For he had proved before, by all sorts of arguments, that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate any sin, could not purge the conscience from dead works; that they “made nothing perfect.” And this he speaks not of this or that sin, but of every sin wherein the conscience of a sinner is concerned, Heb. x. 1, 2. Hence two things follow:—
Ist. That they did not, in and of themselves, really expiate any one sin, small or great. It was impossible, saith the apostle, that they should do so, Heb. x. 4; only they “sanctified to the purifying of the flesh:” which overthrows the foundation of this exposition.
2dly. That they did typify and represent the expiation of all
sorts of sins whatever, and made application of it unto their souls. For if it was so, that there was no atonement for their sins, that their consciences were not purged from dead works, nor themselves consummated, but only had some outward purification of the flesh, it cannot be but they must all eternally perish; but that this was not their condition the apostle proves from hence, because they were called of God unto an eternal inheritance, as he had proved at large concerning Abraham, chap. vi. Hence he infers the necessity of the mediation and death of Christ, as without the virtue whereof all the called under the first covenant must perish eternally, there being no other way to come to the inheritance.