The expositors of the Roman church do here greatly perplex themselves, to secure their sacrifice of the mass from this destroying sentence of the apostle. For a sacrifice they would have it to be, and that for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead; yet they say it is an unbloody sacrifice, For if there be any blood shed in it, it is the blood of Christ, and then he is crucified by them afresh every day; as indeed in some sense he is, though they cannot shed his blood. If it be unbloody, the rule of the apostle is, that it is no way available for the remission of sins) Those that are sober have no way to deliver themselves, but by denying the mass _ to be a proper sacrifice for the remission of sins: which is done ex- pressly by Estius upon the place. But this is contrary unto the direct assertions contained in the mass itself, and raseth the very foundation of it. ‘
Now, if God gave them so much light under the old testament, as that they should know, believe, and profess, that “ without shed- ding of blood is no remission,” how great is the darkness of men under the new testament, who look, seek, or endeavour any other way after the pardon of sin, but only by the blood of Christ!
VER. 23.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 369
Obs. V. This is the great demonstration of the demerit of sin, of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God.—For such was the nature and demerit of sin, such was the righteousness of God with respect unto it, that without shedding of blood it could not be par- doned. They are strangers unto the one and the other who please themselves with other imaginations. And what blood must this be? That the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin was utterly impossible, as our apostle declares. It must be the blood of the Son of God, Rom. iii. 24, 25; Acts xx. 28, And herein were glorified both the love and grace of God, in that he spared not his only Son, but gave him up to be a bloody sacrifice in his death for
us all. VERSE 28.
In the following verses, unto the end of the chapter, the apostle makes an application of all that he had discoursed, concerning the services and sacrifices of the tabernacle, with their use and efficacy, on the one hand, and the sacrifice of Christ, its nature, use, and efficacy, on the other, unto his present argument, Now this was to demonstrate the excellency, dignity, and virtue of the priesthood of Christ, and the sacrifice of himself that he offered thereby, as he was the mediator of the new covenant. And he doth it in the way of comparison, as unto what there was of similitude between them; and of opposition, as unto what was singular in the person and priesthood of Christ, wherein they had no share; declaring on both accounts the incomparable excellency of him and his sacrifice above the priests of the law and theirs. And hereon he concludes his. whole discourse with an elegant comparison and opposition between the law and the gospel, wherein he compriseth in few words the substance of them both, as unto their effects on the souls of men.
That wherein in general there was a similitude in these things is expressed, verse 23.
Ver. 23.— Avdyun oty rd piv brodeiymara ray év rig obpavols, rovrors nabapilerbas aired d: re éroupduc upsirroo Suciaig mapa ravTHS.
‘There is no difference of importance in the translation of these words by any interpreters of reputation, and singly they have been all of them before spoken unto. Only the Syriac renders drodelyyara by SOV1, “ similitudes;” not unaptly.
Ver. 23.—It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacri- fices than these.
An entrance is made in these words into the comparison intended.
For as unto both sorts of sacrifices compared, it is here granted in VOL, XXIIL 24
370 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IX.
general that they purged the things whereunto they were applied. But there is a difference also laid down in this verse, namely, as unto the things that were purified by them, and consequently in the nature of their respective purifications,
There are in the words, 1. A note of inference, or dependence on the former discourse; “therefore.” 2. A double proposition of things of diverse natures compared together. 3. The modification of both these propositions; “(it was necessary.” 4. In the first propo- sition there is, (1.) The subject-matter spoken of; “the patterns of things in the heavens.” (2.) What is affirmed of them as necessary to them; that they “should be purified.” (8.) The means whereby ; “with these.” 5. The same things are proposed in the second, namely, (1.) The things spoken of, or the “heavenly things them- selves.” (2.) What 7s affirmed of them is traduced from the other proposition; they also were “purified.” (3.) The means whereby they were so; “with better sacrifices than these.”
1. That which first occurs is the note of inference, or dependence
tes on the former discourse; “therefore.” And it hath an is not the being of the things, but their manifestation, that is in- tended: ‘ From what hath been said concerning the legal purifica- tion of all things, and the spiritual purification that is by the sacri- fice of Christ, these things are evident and manifest.’